The old suspect, A.K. Ramanujan emerges out of the woodwork on Outlook’s pages. The magazine’s leader to this article says:
…in a pocket of the Delhi University, right-wing student activists have taken exception to this essay by the celebrated scholar A.K. Ramanujan, on the many Ramayanas living across languages and narrative genres, each different but no less legitimate than Valmiki’s epic.
Given that right-wingers are always at fault, let’s see what this inebriated celebrated essay says. The Outlook essay is a condensed form of the complete version found here. Where relevant, this post quotes from both sources.
Ramanujan dwells on why he has used the word tellings of the Ramayana instead of versions or variants.
I have come to prefer the word tellings to the usual terms versions or variants because the latter terms can and typically do imply that there is an invariant, an original or Ur-text—usually Valmiki’s Sanskrit Ramayana, the earliest and most prestigious of them all. But it is not always Valmiki’s narrative that is carried from one language to another. We have a variety of Rama tales told by others, with radical differences among them.
Granted. But there’s a more insidious reason that has entirely to do with Ramanujan. That insidious reason is unrelated to the tellings/variants/versions by themselves. Fundamentally, it serves as a foundation to build Ramanujan’s case upon.
For starters, Ramanujan says it is not always Valmiki’s Ramayana that’s carried to other languages. That begs asking this question: were these Ramayanas pulled from thin air? Assuming they were, why were all of these called Ramayana and containing the same characters? Ramanujan lists out some of these tellings complete with the radical differences.
Valmiki focuses on Rama and his history in his opening sections; Vimalasuri’s Jain Ramayana and the Thai epic focus not on Rama but on the genealogy and adventures of Ravana; the Kannada village telling focuses on Sita, her birth, her wedding, her trials. The Santhals, a tribe known for their extensive oral traditions, even conceive of Sita as unfaithful—to the shock and horror of any Hindu bred on Valmiki or Kampan, she is seduced both by Ravana and by Laksmana. In Southeast Asian texts, Hanuman is not the celibate devotee with a monkey face but a ladies’ man who figures in many love episodes. In Kampan and Tulsi, Rama is a god; in the Jain texts, he is only an evolved Jain man who is in his last birth and so does not even kill Ravana. In the latter, Ravana is a noble hero fated by his karma to fall for Sita and bring death upon himself, while he is in other texts an overweening demon.
These extreme variations are understandable and if anything, they actually emphasize the epic’s overwhelming and sustained influence, and its role in shaping entire cultures. To the extent that a specific variation is perceived with “shock and horror” by Hindus, the answer is relatively easy to find. It can be found in the culture of the borrorwer. When an epic like Ramayana finds its way to a far-off land like Malaysia or Indonesia, it is not farfetched to conclude that they will paste to it aspects and interpretations derived from their native culture.
But Ramanujan is on a different note. He quotes from these different sources to prove that the original Ramayana, more so, that Rama is not the hallow person he is held to be.
When we enter the world of Jains tellings, the Rama story no longer carries Hindu values. Indeed the Jaina texts express the feeling that the Hindus, especially the Brahmins, have maligned Ravana, made him into a villain. Here is a set of questions that a Jaina text begins by asking: “How can monkeys vanquish the powerful raksasa warriors like Ravana? How can noble men and Jaina worthies like Ravana eat flesh and drink blood? How can Kumbhakarna sleep through six months of the year, and never wake up even though boiling oil was poured into his cars, elephants were made to trample over him, and war trumpets and conches blow around him? They also say that Ravana captured Indra and dragged him handcuffed into Lanka. Who can do that to Indra? All this looks a bit fantastic and extreme. They are lies and contrary to reason.”
Ramanujan, one of the forerunners of progressive/secular literary movement, treads on familiar ground: spanking the baby and consoling it when it cries. To his credit, he had scholarship unlike the anti-Ram Mandir drumbeaters. These drumbeaters term Ramayana a work of fiction. If that’s true, why examine the Ramayana inch-by-inch and poke real and imagined holes? Ramanujan’s essay fits this mold. If a large number of people believe it is real, what gives you the authority to tamper with their beliefs?
We now come to the point of what Ramanujan is trying to prove here.
We read the scholarly modern English translation largely to gain a sense of the original Valmiki, and we consider it successful to the extent that it resembles the original. We read Kampan to read Kampan, and we judge him on his own terms—not by his resemblance to Valmiki but, if anything, by the extent that he differs from Valmiki. In the one, we rejoice in the similarity; in the other, we cherish and savor the differences .
A question for Ramanujan: why do we value the original Mona Lisa so much despite having thousands of honourable imitations? If Kamban differs from the original, it is a different work. If Kamban has captured the essence of the original, we rightfully celebrate that. But Ramanujan is not content. He strikes the final blow with a finesse that makes our head bow.
…a folk legend says that Hanuman wrote the original Ramayana on a mountaintop, after the great war, and scattered the manuscript; it was many times larger than what we have now. Valmiki is said to have captured only a fragment of it. In this sense, no text is original, yet no telling is a mere retelling…
Ramanujan mixes legend and fact and heresay so cleverly that it is hard to refute his assertion. Hard, not impossible. The universally-accepted story behind Ramayana’s composition is found in a verse that begins with Maa Nishaada… When he saw a hunter mercilessly killing two birds making love, that verse spontaneously emitted from the depths of his sorrow. Or when “shoka became sloka.” The version of Ramayana I have narrates how Lord Brahma himself commissioned the thief-turned-sage Valmiki to compose the Ramayana. But Ramanujan wants to prove that the original itself doesn’t exist. In other words, there’s nothing like an “original” Ramayana. Let’s extend that: there’s no original play called Hamlet, the one written by Shakespeare. Paradise Lost in the form written by Milton is really not Milton’s.
But that shouldn’t surprise us. A.K. Ramanujan is after all a reteller himself. He translated Anantha Murthy’s pseudo-classic, Samskara into English.
Tags: Books, Indian Philosophy, Literature, Pseudo Secularism Hall of Shame, Society & Culture, War on Communism
Ask Nina Paley. She’d love it.
Excellent post. Let me be the first to comment on these sundry and persistent allegations hoisted by the secular eminents.
These secularist clowns are quite fond of saying that Hindus are reducing the diversity of Indian traditions or are ashamed of multiple narratives in Hindu traditions. This is a very convoluted form of psy-ops against Hindus. No Hindu is saying that there is only one Ramayana tradition. What Hindus are saying is that there is no history of cultural conflict between these various traditions as the secularists deem; these traditions simply reflect natural cultural diversity. Ravana does not hold the position of a theological Shaitan for the Hindus. Hindus readily acknowledge that Ravana was a great Shiva Bhakta and Jnani. Even Rama told Lakshamana to learn from Ravana. There is no history of cultural conflict on the basis of these traditions, even from the now familiar secular petard of a supposed north-south angle.
The secularists are attempting to start a firestorm of cultural war among the hindus. These type of conflicts have been the routine for the christians, muslims, and western-style rationalist idiots.
“….the Hindus, especially the Brahmins, have maligned Ravana, made him into a villain”
Isn’t that amazing? because Ravana was a Brahmin after all.
The so-called 300 / 3000 Ramayanas: The Dravidian propaganda
http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl1805/18051130.htm
some info, not related to this topic
Isnt he dead , or am I thinking of someone else ?
If you think about it for a minute, what is it about such poets that bothers us ? What lies at the root of the issue ?
In A.K.Ramanujans original home state of TN, people who are deemed by the state to be the “affected” parties in the Ramayana have first claim on resources. This is a rigid classification based on birth. For example, you cant start a anti-Ramayan blog and hope to curry favours. Even Mayawati’s dalit party has brahmin ministers, but the DMK does not even have a low level brahmin party functionary. This could explain why A.K.Ramanujan and Company despite their historic contributions to atheism, anti-hinduism, and scholarship over Tamil will not be accepted to the other side. This is why you see the spectacle of Tamil Brahmins in places as remote as Kolkata, Ahmedabad, even Seattle and LA making a general ass of themselves. It is lost on them that the Tamil narrative necessarily excludes them. If Ramayana is just a comic book, then obviously all their speeches against Aryan Kshatriya Ram were just malicious propaganda based on a comic book, right ? This obvious contradiction is the cornerstone of the Dravidian movement. If you question the rationality of the rationalism movement, you have already lost the battle. It is not about rationalism, it is about adhoc-ism. The powers in control of this political movement decide who is the affected party. If your group falls foul of this movement, you risk being thrown to the other side - you wont have any rational basis to protest. This partly explains the vice like grip of the movement. It is about life stories usurping fundamental rights to both equality and social justice.
DU students are upset because people on the other side (i.e. other religions) will seek to enhance their benefits, read religious quotas by using such essays as textbook material. How ? More such essays in official college texts = more signals that the government is officially prone to ridicule a particular religion = more signals that in order to get benefits it does not hurt to be on the other side for securing benefits.
It is all about who gets to keep their fundamental rights to equality and who is coerced to give it up.
If we have a benefits system which was automatically checked and balanced by publicly available data, then no one would get worked up over the excellent work of a Tamil caste exile.
This ‘data’ thing is going to kill this country (or) the judicial system, whichever comes first.
Extremely enlightening one. i had been waiting for this from U Sandeep, since this controversy broke out. Shall follow the debate,studiously.
PI.
Very well written piece, Sandeeep, congratulations. Great u have managed to “see through” this scholarly ploy of Ramanujan.
Coming to the main argument, it finally boils down to this: the only “original,” “received”, “divine” scriptures are the semitic ones, Hindu scriptures are “myths”, a “collection of tales & legends”, in short “anthropomorphic slush.”
Regarding the Jaina version of the Ramayana it must be kept in mind that Jaini writers / monks etc. have always been in opposition to what can be called mainstream Hinduism or (forgive me for using this term) “anti-Brahamanical.” (That’s the reason why these sects or religions came about in the first place.) Hence the attempt to downplay Rama or make Ravana into some kind of a hero. Cleary Mr. Ramanujan & his ilk are not doing anything new. The Jains & the Buddhists predate them.
And one more thing, Hindus have never maligned Ravana. Valmiki, Tulsi etc. are quite clear that he was a Very great man who went wrong in life. Rama, as Valmiki writes, was wonderstruck when he first saw Ravana in the battlefield. And while Ravana was a Brahmin, Valmiki was not (at least he was not born one).
RC,
>>Isnt he dead , or am I thinking of someone else ?
He is dead. The Outlook article was an excerpt from his collected essays, now available as a book. The point of my post was to highlight the deception that was and is being perpetuated.
Regarding the Jaina version of the Ramayana it must be kept in mind that Jaini writers / monks etc. have always been in opposition to what can be called mainstream Hinduism or (forgive me for using this term) “anti-Brahamanical.” (That’s the reason why these sects or religions came about in the first place.)
Raman,
Please allow me a minor nitpick.
I’m not familiar with Jainism, and while what Jainism or Buddhism espouses can be considered as opposition to mainstream Hinduism and anti-Brahminical (though I’d disagree - something that is different is not necessarily in opposition), I’m not sure that there’s any proof that this opposition was the reason these two religions came about in the first place.
There is no mention of Siddharth Gautam being anti-Brahminical or being mistreated under caste system, and as a result, going on his quest and getting enlightened. He was well-versed in all the spiritual practices that were popular during those times in Hinduism, explored them and found them insufficient for what he was looking for, and went a step further.
Kaafir (with apologies to Sandeep for this digression): But that is absolutely true. Jain and Buddhist clergy have always been anti-Brahamanical. They, for instance, do not attach any importance to the Vedas. Take any Jaina or Buddhist version of a Hindu myth or story, it will always differ from the mainstream version. The Jaina Ramayana is the best example, it’s the same story but the focus is different (Rama is not so great as in Valmiki’s version; Ravana is a Jaina, etc.) Read Hiuen Tsang’s accounts of his travels in India. He talks proudly of worsting Brahmins in some assembly or the other. And this finds repeated mention in numerous Buddhist works.
In turn mainstream Hindus always looked upon Jainas and Buddhists with suspicion (nastikas, i.e., do not believe in God). Read the Srimad Bhagvata. In quite a few places there are critical references to both these religions. This schism, although never violent, was always their.
What u say is no doubt correct. Gautam Buddha was a spiritual seeker not somebody with a definite anti-Brahmin agenda and that goes for Mahavira too. But the religions, which developed from them, definitely set themselves apart from Hinduism, especially Buddhism.
Good work Sandeep!
Dear sandeep,
i think you are barking up the wrong tree.AK Ramanujan was a superb scholar,a polymath.He was a pioneer in the translation of ancient sangam poetry and alwar bhakti poems.”Hymns of the Diving” translations of nammazhvar.He also translates basava’s vachanas from kannada to english.His translations from tamil were beautiful works of art.He was a pioneer indo-anglian poetry and scholar.
Being a kannada iyengar he was extremely sensitive to the rich traditions in non-sanskrit languages.He brought scholarly attention to tamil and kannada.
I cannot believe an iyengar can ever be didrespectful to Ramayana.No tradition has exalted the Valmiki Ramayana as the Srivaishnava tradition from the alwars(particularly kulasekhara alwar) to Ramanuja to periavacchan pillai.The Srivaishnavas appreciate the Valmiki Ramayana for its literary beauty as well as theology.(”Saranagathi Sasthra”).
AK Ramanujan who explored his roots-Mysore Iyengar as few can ever do did not utter anything disrespectful.This one essay where he noted multiple interpretations of Ramayana cannot be held against him.
It seems natural for a brilliant indvidual who was exploring language and cultural issues and becoming aware of critical analysis to note that there are multiple interpretations other than the orthodox srivaishnava narrative.This must have struck AK Ramanujan quite naturally .
‘Hymns of the Drowning’-Anthology of Nammazhwars poems from Tiruvoimozhi
Dear xyz,
In general, this struck me:
>>It seems natural for a brilliant indvidual who was exploring language and cultural issues and becoming aware of critical analysis to note that there are multiple interpretations other than the orthodox srivaishnava narrative.
I’m all for multiple interpretations as long as they’re done without altering the basic framework/plot/whatchamacallit of Ramayana. Every single example AKR quotes shows how far each one is from the original. Besides, the orthodox Srivaishnava tradition says Ravana didn’t touch Sita when he abducted her. The original Valmiki epic says he carried her on his shoulders. However, it doesn’t alter the basic story of the Ramayana.
As I’ve shown, AKR is up to mischief because he tries to show that there’s nothing like even a Valmiki Ramayana.
AK Ramanujam is a much hyped scholar. He understood neither the Indian intellectual tradition nor the current Western tradition. To study the literature of India without any reference to aesthetics, poetics, grammar, and philosophy is to study biology by simply collecting specimens. There was a time when I read his xlations of Tamizh poetry. But I have moved on since then to deeper and profound questions. AKR’s impact on Indian scholarship is minimal and he is a lightweight.
Dear sandeep,
I do feel that Ramanujan went a little overboard in this article.It does seem that he was irreverent and was confusing the issues involved.In my enthusiasm to defend AKR,i had missed this essential thread running through.
I do not know about the Santhal tradition,so i cannot comment.But the Jain version seems consistent with the philosophy of its writers.
The Ramayana was appropriated by Jain and Buddhist writers,because of its popularity among the people.They brought up their own versions.The secular junta have gone so far as to assert that Ramayana was originally a Buddhist tale appropriated by the Hindus.SAHMAT(a pseuso secular organisation) organised a painting exhibition in Ayodhya featuring Buddhist Jataka tales where Rama and Sita were portrayed as siblings who married each other.Buddhists were not above such tactics in ancient times.The secular crowd get perverse pleasure in drawing attention to such narratives.Anything that is taboo always attracts curiosity,particularly among those who have made it their life’s mission to spread anarchy.
But the Hindu tradition is unique in accepting such tendencies are a part of this samsara.Even orthodoxy is part of this Maya.But orthodox tradition does not countenance deviant behaviour.
The Buddhist and Jain traditions tried to appropriate the Rama katha.It is not a part of their living traditions,it is a forgotten chapter in their history.But trying to equate the significance of Ramayana in mainstream Sanatana Dharma with obscure tales in other traditions is a gross error tantamount to obfuscation and even mischief.AKR has unwittingly given in to impulses of titillation and cheap theorising.Most human beings are guilty of such sins.
But I would still insist that AKRs work on Tamil poetry(both Sangam and Bhakti) and kannada poetry(Basavas vachanas) as pathbreaking.I also respect his moral courage in exploring his roots.
As one who is passionate about TN-karnataka relations based on mutual respect,harmony and understanding ,he was a pioneer to me.The fact that he translated secular tamil sangam poetry,medieval vaishnava tamil poetry,medieval kannada saiva poetry is an indication of his integrity,intellectual breadth and depth apart from his creative ability.
I would let you guys forget that oral tradition is an important, though disappearing/ed, aspect of Indian culture down into the 21st century. Pandas have often protested against the use of casetttes and CDs at functions coz it makes their memory useless. Feats of memory were essential in the transmission of various ‘texts’ - whether it be the Vedas or the rasos and vachanikas of N and C India, or the Ramayana.
And yes Shakespeare has often been termed a person who re-told existing stories. Sorry to break your hearts, but please check out at least the wikipedia page on ‘Hamlet’. More importantly, there is nothing wrong with that. Why does every Indian want to be so original and mad about being ‘first’? What is this insecurity?
More importantly, why do you think that the multiple traditions of India, reflected in the many Ramayanas or x y z, have never been in conflict. Please do think about why the Rajputs and the Marathas and the Jats were never able to form a united Hindu front, much to your 21st century chagrin, in the 18th century vacuum of Indian politics. One could recount many more such cases. More importantly, look to the state of the nation now. You can blame the Muslims and the Secularists happily, but I do believe that looking inwards is always more fruitful.
As far as Ramanujam goes, you could give him some respect, for knowing multiple languages, saving some manuscripts, making some of these texts popular outside South India. Why dont some of you go ahead and do some translations yourselves, so that the rest of the world would get to know what only you know about Indian history and culture. And this is from somebody who greatly admires Uma Bharati and Govindacharya, but also the Maoists. I am sure you guys resemble the Pramod Mahajan brand of Bania/Brahmin/Cosmopolitan Nationalism.
vikas said: “Please do think about why the Rajputs and the Marathas and the Jats were never able to form a united Hindu front, much to your 21st century chagrin, in the 18th century vacuum of Indian politics.”
While one can let you carry on with rest of the polemics, this one is too much to digest. Looks like you have never done any reading about the third battle of Panipat and Rajput-Maratha-Jat-Sikh relationships at around that time in 18th century.
A) Jat relations:
AHMAD SHAH ABDALI AND SARV-KHAP PANCHAYAT
As recorded by Pandit Kanha Ram, the official Bhat ( historian) of the Haryana Sarvkhap, a contemporary of the times and a witness to the entire episode. This was researched and forms part of the Book by Prof B K Dabas.- Political and Social History of the Jats.- 2001, Sanjay Prakashan, New Delhi. ISBN : 81-7453-045-2.
Some key parts:
About in V.S. 1813 Sardar Dattaji, deputed by Marathas, drove out Najib Khan to Shukartal from Delhi. Jats, Gujars and many other brave people of Haryana shared this battle. All those fought this battle abreast with Marathas. Dattaji stayed for some three years in a mud-fort at Shukartal. The Jats were a part of his army. They fought shoulder to shoulder with Marathas to defeat this enemies. In these three years Dattaji eliminated Najib’s rule over all the Hindu places of pilgrimage. The Sarv-Khap panchayat always supported Dattaji in subduing Najib.
When Najib felt helpless he invited emperor Abdali of Kandhar for his help. Dattaji was given the responsibility to protect Delhi, Thaneswar and the land between Ganga and Yamuna. In V.S. 1816 Abdali marched towards India. Dattaji left Shukartal and marched to defend Delhi with his complete Maratha army and 5,000 brave soldiers of Haryana. Datta’s army fought with Abdali at Badli. [About 12 kilometers NW of Delhi] The battle lasted for four days. The advance soldiers of Dattaji compelled Abdali to retreat. Abdali was just intending to slip away. In the meantime armies of Najib and Nawab of Lucknow reinforced Abdali. At this hour in addition to Maratha army a force of some ten thousand Sarv-Khap Panchayat Jat soldiers joined Datta. Abdali was attacked on three sides and he suffered a serious loss.
When Maratha Council deputed Sadashiv Rao Bhau and Bisbas Rao to confront Abdali, Peshwa exhorted his brother Sada Shiv Rao Bhau, “Promote your contact with all the Indian kings and the Sarv-Khap Panchayat of Haryana.” As per the Peshwa’s advice Bhau wrote letters to all of them and invited them for support. [For a photograph of the original letter see Sadashiv bhau.doc under http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JatHistory/files/
After the debacle of Panipat, and we need not get into its causes for the present, it was Jat Raja Surajmal of Bharatpur who later gave shelter to Maratha survivors and spent money from his own pocket to rehabilitate and feed them for several months, and he had no need of doing so since he had no political advantage except for the common cause binding Jats and Marathas.
B) Rajputs and Marathas:
this site will help you: http://maratharajputrelations.com
But here is one interesting portion:
Beyond doubts, Jaysing was the patron of Hindu religion and culture. It was his ambition his kingdom from Yamuna to Narmada(27). There was nothing unnatural in it as after the fall of Farrukh Siyar, every Mughal Chief tried to create and independent position for himself, even Giridhar Bahadur(28) in Malwa was not an exception to this rule. It is correct to say that in calling the Marathas into Malwa in 1728 A.D.(29) , his action was motivated by self interest. But when he saw that he could not retain Malwa for himself, he was not sorry to leave it into the hands of the Marathas, because in the view of the Rajpurts of the generation of Sawai Jaysing there was definitely a difference between the Malwa under the Maratha Government and the Malwa under the Mughal Government. Had it not been the fact then Sawai Jaysing would have been the enemy of the Marathas especially after 1736 A.D. when their hold on Malwa was established beyond doubt.
After the defeat the death of Giridhar Bahadur at the hands of Chimaji Appa, Sawai Jaysing congratulated Nandlal Mandloi (30) thus, “You have defended our religion in Malwa and crushed the Muhammedans(31) , establishing Dharma. You have fulfilled my desire.” He was ambitious no doubt but he was religious minded as well. And hence his ambition could not carry him to extreme limit in opposing the Marathas for the possession of Malwa, so as to join hands with the Turani party. He would have certainly liked to retain Malwa for himself to fulfill his cherished dream of the expansion of his kingdom. And he did all efforts to achieve it. But he was sufficiently religious minded to see that in the acquisition of Malwa by the Marathas he was leaving that province to another Hindu power that was nothing but friendly to him. It is a well-known fact that he was the well wisher and supporter of Bajirao till the death of the latter.
There should be no doubt about the fact that Sawai Jaysing saw the “Establishment of Dharma”, in the victories of the Maraths over the muslims (32) had he called the Marathas for his personal gain alone, the story would not have continued from 1728 A.D. till the cession of the Subha of Malwa to the Maraths . It is through him that the demands of the Bajirao (33) relating to Malwa reached the Emperor and it is through his efforts that Balajirao-Bajirao’s son-got the Sanad of Malwa in 1741 A.D. It was due to this partiality of Jaysing towards the Marathas that Sadat Khan gained the confidence of the Emperor in 1735 A.D(34) . This common factor of Hindu religion between the Rajputs and the Marathas was known even to the Emperor. He feared that if Jaysing were displeased, he, being a Hindu, would join Bajirao(35).
http://maratharajputrelations.com/1fp.html
C) Sikh:
Ever wondered why after the defeat by Awrangzib, Guru Govind Singhji moved to Maharashtra where he spent his last days? Also please read up on the role of Sikhs in Confronting and harassing Abdali after Panipat-III.
Dear Sarvesh,
It is wonderful that you produced this passage which is based on a Bhat’s account and which has been used for the first time in writing Jat history. Nevertheless I must also add that BK Dabas is a rather unknown entity and I have never read his book. As for the photo of Dattaji’s letter, they need to allow me into their group first! No other historians have used Bhat sources so far, which are altered and edited every few decades, self-admittedly by the Bhats. I had interviewed my family (Jats of Rohtak distt) Bhats and he himself told me. I do not know whether Mr Dabas has used his sources well or not. At least the language of his sources sounds nothing like 18th century. Using terms like sarv-khap panchayat and Haryana for the 18th c Jats, while the Jats who counted in this period were from Bharatpur and Brij! But I do take your word for the time being. I will try and get hold of the book soon.
This does not stop one from looking at the account from Zikr-i Mir (Zikr-I Mir: The Autobiography of the Eighteenth Century Mughal Poet: Mir Muhammad Taqi Mir, translated by C. M. Naim, OUP, 1997). Mir Taqi Mir is in the pay and protection of none other than Suraj Mal c.1761. I am afraid he does not portray friendly relations between Surajmal and JaiSingh or between their successors. The Marathas of course came up till Mathura and Vrindavan in order to gain booty, which is why they were abandoned by one and all in 1761. There are many other sources if you could read up Jadunath Sarkar and Satish Chandra on 18th c, but Mir came to my mind now. Another published source is a translation (by SH Askari) of an account by Shivdas Lakhanvi, which also conveys a rather divided Hindu community.
The passage above says Jeysing wanted an empire from Yamuna to Narmada. How on earth do you think Jats would respond to that? The Gaekwads and Bhonsles and Sindhias would not have liked it either! As a self-respecting Jat, I would not care about his desires. And I can assure you that nobody from Mathura to Rawalpindi would have done so in the 18th c either. Hindu, Sikh or Muslim. Maybe this explains the history of Jat-Rajput conflict in N India back to 18c. Of course Shivaji fleed Agra because he wanted to be superior to a Rajput in the darbar. And indeed as a response he did not call himself samrat or any sanskrit word but HINDU-PADSHAH, a direct influence of the Mughal court.
Why are the Gosain Bahadurs (Giridhar Bahadur is one of them), who are Hindu holy and religious leaders, and were allies of the Bundelas, being called enemies of the religion by Jeysing. Why did another Hindu, Ch.. Appa, kill Giridhar Bahadur? If the Marathas cared about Hindu unity why did they come up to govern Malwa? Were there no Hindus in Malwa? Or did they not trust them? Why did they seek a sanad from the Emperor, and that too in the 18th c, when the Mughal empire was already broken up, and who in your opinion had nothing but the welfare of Islam on mind? Why did the fiction of the Mughal emperor go on till 1857? The answer is because for every Indian that was the only trustworthy symbol. The Rajputs never trusted the Marathas and vice versa. Ever since we have seen partition. Once of India and once of Pakistan, and if things keep going the way they seem now …
My point being there is and was no Hindu unity or Muslim unity in this country, as can be seen in the fate of Pakistan as well as India. People have been dreaming of that since centuries but it has never happened and hopefully it would continue the same way. It is pipe dreams of some upper castes and wannabe OBCs/Dalits. It is high time you accept this so that you would not be surprised by this increasingly fragmented Hindu dream (and I see the Cong and the BJP as more or less same). Do you still blame Muslims for the Jat-Rajput historical tension in India? The latest round was given a boost by none other than the BJP who gave OBC status to Jats! Hindu unity! We are now witnessing the Maratha compassion for the rest of India for almost an year by the way. In Mumbai, Thane, Nasik etc Purbiyas are being forced to realise that compassion. And do not blame the ‘weak Indian state’ for this. The state is built upon the society.
History is for self-reflection. You guys are out for self-glorification and commemoration. Just like Indian politicians and the multiple garlands in which they drown. I am sure you hate all the Yadavs and Mayawati too. Why did they come about in the first place? Why did the BJP kick out all OBC leaders after 1992? Kalyan Singh, Vinay Katiar, Uma Bharti. Where are they? Why? Also, I hope you keep in mind that nobody respects those who blow their own trumpet.
You raise too many issues at one go, as well as insist on mixing Historical facts and socio-interpretations and contemporary politics, result of which becomes very digressing and less convenient to understand and respond. The only point which I wanted to discuss in your original post was this passage :
“Please do think about why the Rajputs and the Marathas and the Jats were never able to form a united Hindu front, …, in the 18th century vacuum of Indian politics.”
And I limited my scope only to 18th century and only to the geographies of Jat, Rajput, Maratha-s while it was pertinent for me to add Sikh dimension.
But in your latest post you moved the goalpost, and brought in earlier period, the Shivaji’s time, and a later period, the British time… and for whatever unclear reason ended up concluding with judgement on political leanings and aspirations of forum commentators….
I can not keep up with you.
But I must clarify a few things back to the original scope of discussion that you raised.
Jadunath Sarkar was a greatest of great Indian historian, my personal favorite, and the role model of histeriography. I have read his ‘Shivaji and his Times’ at least half a dozen times so far, besides his work on Awrangzib and related issues, and am a big fan of Jadunath style of history writing. Few come close to him most importantly in honestly following the religion of history scholarship, that is understanding historical moment independent of one’s political/social leanings/bias. We can not mix that great man with the likes of Satish Chandra and other satraps of Marxism, for whom the very object of history writing is to procure support for their current political-socialogical ideologies.
Now, here is the thing. Jadunath did not have access to all the 18th century Maratha-Jat-Sikh sources (Rajuts sources were well available by this time, thanks to Todd). His primary source were Persian sources from Mughal, Bijapur, and Deccan/Hyderabad chroniclers in addition to whatever was available till then. Reading of Jadunath version therefore should be performed in light of later findings, e.g. Bakhars and correspondances of Peshawa-s etc. discovered after his time. For holistic historical facts in this context, one should read original MarahaTTI sources, Jat sources, and pre-1900 Sikh sources, published is last few decades. And in this, don’t undermine the researchers like Professor Dabas.
Now, with this digression behind, we have to first understand what does “united Hindu Front” in 18th century mean. Does the Maratha army waging war against another Hindu ruler mean disunity? While attempting to find an answer to this, one has to not only bear in mind the events and dates, but the underlying sentiments, attitudes, and dynamics of the time.
Mughals were the chakravartins, and after farruksiar, that was practially over. There was a vacuum which needed to be filled by another Chakravartin, whom the rest of the political centers must accept as overlords. Like it always happens with the rise of any new Chakravartin, political tussles were going on, beginning ith the death of farrukhsiar, and several centers of power were contesting for occupying this place. marahaTTa were however the only ones, who had by then the largest coverage both in geographical terms, military terms, and revenue terms. And policy followed by the first 3 peshawa was to softly though surely occuply the place of the Mughal, and it is for this reason that they were on one hand “protecting” the Mughals, and on the other nurturing their own acceptance. In the process, they had allies and supporters, such as Jats, many Rajputs (e.g. Bundi, Manda) and some detractors. As is natural detractors will receive military attention until a stable situation would arrive.
At the cost of another digression, one should study this period in light of how Vijayanagara became the supreme unchallenged power in dakShiNApatha within 50/60 years of its birth. pANDya-s, and rulers of Andhra and kerala readily accepted the overlordship of bukkArAya, while some draviDa kings were to be militarily defeated. And after this, the boundary had to be exmapned nothwards upto Orissa before attaining stability. Compare that with this period, although on a larger scale.
Another case in point will be the period when Delhi sultanate was defeated, and Sher Shah Suri and Hemachanra were asserting themselves from east.
So, in mid of 18th century that is the process which was going on, and certainly the enimity within different Hindu powers was natural. But the larger question is, did the Hindu forces fail to unite together and forge a “common front” when events such as a foreign invasion by Abdali took place? Find out an answer to this, and we shall have a better understanding of the dynamism of those times. The reality is, that under Bhau’s command, marched Jat columns as well as Rajputs and Gurjars. And Sikhs, who were not yet an established united political force, conrtibuted by harrassing Abdali. And next you have to cmpare similar attitude all over India throughout this period. Compare the alliance of marahaTTa-s with southern tribes in war against Hyder Ali near Mysore. Their alliance even with muslim powers of that time such as Awadh nawabs etc., as well.
So my conclusion will be:
As far as united Hindu Front in contingency is needed, that always happened, throughout this period. As far as long term Hindu confederation is concerned, it needed a larget span of time, and was in the process of making, when suddenly interrupted by an even stronger force brought to the scene by the Industrial Revolution in Europe.
I shall ignore remaining points you have innecessarily raised e.g. Shivaji’s Agra visit etc., relevance of which was not clear to me.
Above was from me.
Vikas said: “…there is and was no Hindu unity …. dreaming of that since centuries but it has never happened and hopefully it would continue the same way.
“Hopefully”??? But that gives you away my dear friend!!! Big mistake.