Some more on Tipu and Tughluq

My previous column about Girish Karnad and his plays ‘The Dreams of Tipu’ and ‘Tughluq’ drew the attention of readers more internationally than nationally.There was a stream of emails agreeing and disagreeing with the column. Most readers from Pakistan appreciated the column but comments from across the border were more in disagreement, especially about Tipu Sultan. It is not possible to respond to all emails so here only a few of them are being discussed. Some emails were from academics and students and some others from readers who wanted more details about these topics.For example, renowned critic and writer, Nasir Abbas Nayyar, wrote that it was a wonderful piece and he thought that the relevance of Tughluq was evident. Another reader, Asif Iqbal Mirza, sought to know more details, “What was the overall economic situation before Tughluq? What were the causes that enforced (sic) Tughluq to mint more and more coins? If there is any illustration in any book kindly suggest it plz (sic).” Well, in this age of the internet, researching such topics and finding names of books is relatively easy, the challenge is to get and read them.Some books I mentioned in my previous columns, and more books that I have in my collection include: ‘Some Aspects of Medieval Indian History’ by U N Day; ‘Advanced Study in the History of Medieval India’ by J L Mehta Vol 3 has a chapter on Tughluq’s financial policy. In Urdu, Ishtiaq Hussain Qureshi’s book ‘Sultanate-e-Delhi ka Nazm-e-Hukumat’ has a 40-page chapter on finances. Another good source is the third volume of ‘The History of India as told by its own historians’, edited from the posthumous papers of Sir H M Elliot by John Dowson published in Pakistan by Islamic Book Service, Urdu Bazaar Lahore.An email from Suresh Ramaswami was interesting, he writes, “Girish Karnad was no doubt a great literary, theatre and movie personality when dealing with social issues. However, one is not so sure when he is dealing with historical figures, specially (sic) when depicting Muslims. When you are dealing with a historical figure, you need to be neutral and depict all facets of that personality both in terms of fairness and balance. One can’t only glorify a person when the facts point to other facets also. For example, Tipu was a Muslim king who fought against all his competitors with equal ferocity, be it the Marathas, Nizam of Hyderabad or the British.”While respecting the opinion of Mr Ramaswami, this writer maintains that being neutral in history is ideal, but hardly achievable. Moreover in a stage play it is well-nigh impossible to depict all facets of a personality. Girish Karnad tried to be as balanced and fair as possible with both Tughluq and Tipu and succeeded in writing plays that are free from religious prejudices and bigotry. The playwright neither glorified Tipu not lionized Tughluq; it is simply a matter of how you look at them.Most historical sources confirm that Tipu did try to align with the Marathas and the Nizam of Hyderabad but both preferred to side with the British and saved their own principalities, whereas Tipu died fighting. Mr Ramaswami continues, “He {Tipu} died fighting the British without making any compromise. Hence he is feted as a great freedom fighter, which is not correct. He only fought for his kingdom. Secondly, Tipu died in 1799, which is just 220 years ago, and hence is relatively recent in historical terms. Multiple historical facts exist from different sources regarding his rule.”Of course, he is rightly feted as a great freedom fighter, and yes he was fighting for his kingdom; as Jinnah and Nehru were fighting for their country. You may also conclude that Jinnah and Nehru were fighting to become the rulers of India and Pakistan, which is true but it does not diminish their stature as freedom fighters. It is true that multiple historical facts can be deduced from different sources, but again it is up to the reader and writer to draw conclusions from them. All great figures in history can be painted black or white depending on what you choose to do.Mr Ramaswami concludes by saying, “There is strong evidence to show that Tipu was a despot, communal person. He killed and also converted thousands of innocent people. People like Girish Karnad only want to paint Tipu as a brave king who fought the British and was a tolerant person who helped all his subjects equally.”There is no denying the fact that Tipu was a king, and all kings are despots; but I am not sure about his being a communal person. There is plenty of evidence that he recruited and promoted Hindus as well.Another reader from London, Naresh Wadhera, was even more scathing in his email. He wrote almost a three-page long article to respond to the column. He refers to several news reports from Pakistani newspapers about destruction of temples in Pakistan, especially in Sindh. He also highlights how minorities are badly treated in Pakistan. One wonders what it has to do with Girish Karnad, or with Tipu and Tughluq. Then Mr Wadhera moves on to cite Mahmood Ghaznavi as the culprit who attacked the temple of Somnath and butchered thousands of Hindus and Ismaili Muslims.Now all this may be true, but according one of the most respected Indian historians, Romila Thapar, the Somnath episode is all but a fiction. Mahmood Ghaznavi was again a ruler and just like any other king must have been responsible for so many deaths. Just like Narendra Modi was responsible for thousands of deaths in Gujarat; not that he himself killed so many people but because he turned a blind eye to the killings that were going on. Mr Wadhera quotes from Ziauddin Barani’s book, ‘Fatawa-e-Jahandari’ to prove that Barani called for “an all-out struggle against Hinduism”.Here Mr Wadhera is right; Barani was not a tolerant person neither was he an objective and neutral historian. He did maintain a certain dislike – or even hatred – against other religions. The Urdu translation of ‘Fatawa-e-Jahandari’ that I have was done by Prof Ateeq-ur-Rahman, and it provides ample evidence of an extremist approach followed and suggested by Barani. He urges the Muslim rulers of India to impose a strict religious code without sparing anyone. Fortunately, most Muslim rulers in India did not follow Barani’s advice, otherwise it would have been a disaster for India.Mr Wadhera is also right in pointing out that Pakistani curricula and school textbooks do not inculcate tolerance with other religions and highlight the ‘Hindu mindset’ as conspiratorial and against Muslims and Pakistan. This is something serious and has prompted liberal and progressive columnists and educationists – which are not many – to demand a more tolerant curriculum that should promote harmony in society. Unfortunately, even in India now the BJP government is changing its curriculum to suit its agenda of Hindutva.I would like to conclude this column with an email from Shikarpur Sindh, by Azhar Azad Mughal. He translated the column into Sindhi and wants some clarification on some words such as Manthan, Marathas, and Kannada. Manthan means churning, as when you make a lassi or milkshake you churn the ingredients. Here Manthan means a revolutionary churning in society. Marathas are a nationality in India, today mostly living in the Indian state of Maharashtra. They were united in the 17th century by Sivaji who is considered the father of the Maratha nation. Kannada is the language mostly spoken in the Indian state of Karnataka.The writer holds a PhD from theUniversity of Birmingham, UK and works in Islamabad.Email: mnazir1964@yahoo.co.uk

from The News International - Opinion https://ift.tt/2XJ7gWQ