Indian Core: Ideas and descriptions-I

[surinder]

The flight of capital to Izslam still continues: The Hajj money that goes to KSA, with even the GOI contributing. Giving up of 1/3 of India to form TSP & BD. Also, there is a cost to India for eschewing Israel for M sensitivities.

[Prem]

The fundamental problem behind the incomplete revival and failures are because the Gangetic plain has not understood that without the principles of the core being re-established they will never be able to achieve that strength. In their delusion they tried to substitute the core with ideas from the Abrahamic which was however designed for a much simpler society.

I am with you till this part, however here you lose me a bit, can you explain in some more detail what are the ideas that were sought to be substituted and what should have been the real ideas? Also the time frames? (we may actually have the same idea, I just want to be sure)

Both Ideas as well the protagonists of this Ganga Jamuni core, their political influence be identified to disperse the proper gyan straight to the right spot.

[brihaspati]

Sanku-ji,

The fundamental problem behind the incomplete revival and failures is lack of understanding by the leadership based on the Gangetic plains.

In their attempt at reassertion in 1857, what they did out of "tactical" necessity, was to try to put up the Mughal emperor as focus of the "core". But this was against the encirclement trend underlying the peripheral move to finish off the Mughal regime itself. The Mughal regime, overall did not behave as the "core". They tried to reproduce Central Asia and retain "Mongol" ambience in the rashtra. They remained ruler of "Hindustan" and never became Bharatyias. The few walking in that direction were effectively silenced - both in the case of Akbar as well as Dara.

The same goes for early socialists and leftists. Their reach was exactly the Gangetic plains to start with. The first indigenous CP was formed by Satyabhakta operating from Bihar and UP. Socialist organizations are also associated with the names of some of our most respected radicals and martyrs hailing exactly from this region.

When Nehru started his campaigns, it was again based on this rejection of the Bharatyia principles and "core", but acceptance of myths and "core bashing" based on essentially European, Christian and colonial representation and POV.

In all three cases above, their search is for a motivational principle that comes from the Abrahamic and colonial experience. Not a single aspect of pre-Abrahamic Bharatyia thought is explored to search for inspiration and justification, especially that which can replace the Abrahamic and colonialism with violence if necessary. So only certain representations of Buddhism, and Ashoka's supposed principle of rashtryia power is touted as the only acceptable part.

Just as the proselytizing Abrahamic was shaped by the needs of a personality cult based political power, the Bharatyia principles of person and interpreter independent values were subverted and replaced. These were replaced by something essentially borrowed from the Abrahamic. The clearance of all independent values and creation of an ideological vacuum, where the utterings and desires of an individual leader get established as divine inspiration.

[brihaspati]

Surinder,
the first British were welcomed in the late 17th century. When Kanta "Mudi" welcomed Charnock, it was the last leg of the 1600's. The last Grand Mogul was still tossing and turning where a lrage chunk of his income still was coming from Bengal.

If you look at the scenario building up towards 1757, the basic political intrigue was being shaped up by characters like Umichand and Jagat Seth using the British (and being used). The MirJaffars and MirQasims were mere pawns.

[surinder]

B, but were their motives really pure, i.e. they were looking for collaborators to liquidate the Mughals?

What about the motives of joining with the British & swelling the ranks of their Army post 1757 (Mughals were a mere shadow at that time, Marathas in control of Delhi.) Were their motives still predominantly Mughal-focssed?


(Note: I am trying to learn, not contradicting or arguing.)

[brihaspati]

surinder,
the consciousness of a motive is difficult to prove. Especially in such contexts. Even if they leave documents behind that may not reflect true motives. I am trying to do what all historians do - trying to find patterns of behaviour in what they did.

It is not an easy jump to welcome a foreign force, with lots of unknowns, against a known and established indigenous power. By no means it was apparent in the first half of 1700's that the British could overwhelm the Mughals. Now this was a Mughal regime, that under Alivardi had repulsed the Marathas under Bhaskar Pundit from Bengal, expanded into Arakan and defeated the local king who had for decades ruined coastal Bengal by piracy. Moreover, being traders they could have easily known about the possible dangers of Europeans having foothold - in the experience of the early Portuguese colonies.

If in spite of such a scenario they sided with the British, they had to have very strong motives against the representative of the Mughal power in Bengal.

Mughal rule need not have been a very nice thing to happen to Bengal. We know that they were initially resisted by a local coalition of prominent chiefs and landowners - both Hindu and Muslim ("baro-bhunyia" - twelve big landholders). The prominent Hindu chief was Pratapaditya of Jessore, who is said to have built a navy and used Portuguese soldiers for military purposes, and the prominet Muslim leader was Isha Khan.

Mughals extended the tax burden hugely, and they intensified repressive measures that must have been excessively galling. Manrique, foreign traveller, notes the ease with which the "shiqdar" could enforce the Shah-jehan firman of enslaving entire families of peasants if they failed to deliver demanded tax. Manrique writes that peasants were imprisioned and taken to auction markets together with their women crying and carrying their babies. Shajehan also had decreed that the women from such family enslavements had to be sold to Muslim buyers only.

Since this was observed in Bengal we can imagine the reality was not rosy and favourable to generate great love for Mughal rule.

[surinder]

B,

What you say is true, that real motivations are hard to pry out. But I am a little cautious in ascribing higher motives to collaborations with British. In some cases it was justified, but in most cases the motives tend to be pretty basic (earning money, power) and what is usually found in India a very familiar trait: Siding with the foreigner to dominate your brother.

My sceptism is less when we see patterns of local Indian recruitment into British Army early on (when Mughal Rule was strong). But I am more cynical when looked at in later times (when Mughal empire was a mere shell). That latter day recruitment could not have been due to any higher motives.

This latter day recruitment was cruicial for British-Maratha wars, as well as British-Sikh wars. What that means is that whatever the early motivations to collaborate, the latter day recruitment only served to destroy indegenous Hindu-sourced resurgence. These traitorous & foolhardy actions the current day "Core" does not wish to acknowledge.

[RayC]

The majority of the 'regulars' in the EIC Army were Hindus and the majority of 'irregulars' were the Muslims.

[RayC]

In both the Madras and Bombay armies, the British had from the beginning made little as possibly of caste. The troops irrespective of caste stood in the ranks without any regards of their position in the world outside and ate and slept together without any regards to their differences.

However, it was not so for the Bengal Army. Only the higher castes were selected with a high percentage of Brahmins and any breach in caste restriction was duly avoided.

Thus, while the non Indo Gangetic plain were of the egalitarian temperament, the Indo Gangetic dwellers were always in the game of 'oneupmanship' (even today if one observes the cowbelt states) and hence possibly the fallout that they believe and want others to believe that they are the Core of India. On the other hand, the others are not concerned over such aspirations and so they merrily go their way and yet put their stamp where necessary.

After 1857, when the Army was reconstructed, it was on class lines. It also reinforced the Victorian concept of importance of heredity. Further, what they saw in India confirmed their opinion; there were hereditary money lenders, washermen, goldsmiths and scavengers; there were hereditary rulers and soldiers too. It was common sense not to try to train a money lender to be a soldier since it would be a waste of time and effort. It was better to make a soldier of those who were already ‘hereditary’ soldiers by caste. And there came the distinction between ‘martial’ and ‘non martial’ and this divide also helped in giving an elitist boost to the ‘martial’ castes and since they had greater privileges from the British Empire than those who were not in the military service, their loyalty was thus assured to a greater extent. Thus, the Brahmins who were the motivators of the rebellion in 1857, though useful to the British for command and control, yet dangerous, were eliminated.

Clever that the British were, they also ensured that those who could affect the opinion of the populace i.e. Brahmins and other non martial higher castes were equally appeased by giving them posts in the Administration. They retained their position in society but were made toothless to incite another rebellion.

[RayC]

Ramana.

Read this:

ETHICS FOR ALL
- This cauldron of the great illusion

THE DIFFICULTY OF BEING GOOD: ON THE SUBTLE ART OF DHARMA By Gurcharan Das, Allen Lane, Rs 699

The review by historian Rajat Ray

What is it to be good? How can one be good? These are the questions that Gurcharan Das ponders in this reconsideration of the Mahabharata. He thus raises the central question, which the Mahabharata’s hero, Yudhishthira, pondered in life and during his final journey: What is dharma?

From this arises a certain resemblance between the old epic and this book, its current offshoot. Veda Vyasa, the putative author of the epic, and Das, the present author, pose moral questions to explore the complex dimensions of the issue, they proceed to relate stories, real or imagined. In short, both teach by examples. In old India, this form of writing was called itihasa. The listeners took the storyteller’s tale to be true. The belief might have been unfounded. Nevertheless, historians concede that elements of historical fact lie embedded in the epic. The business and political stories Das relates from his own contemporary experience, juxtaposing them with the Mahabharata stories (which he re-tells movingly), are, by contrast, based on fact.

What exactly is itihasa? It is not what we historians nowadays understand by ‘history’. The old understanding of the term is captured in a Sanskrit definition in translation: “Itihasa is a tale of old, with advice about dharma (righteousness), artha (power and wealth), Kama (pleasure), and moksha (liberation from the cycle of births and deaths).” It will be seen that this is not professional history as understood in modern times. Nor is the Mahabharata history. It is itihasa. The stories may or may not be true. That does not matter. The truth, as understood here, is greater than fact. Das subjects this work to both historical and moral examination.

The Ramayana and the Mahabharata are both called epics now. There was no term for epic then (mahakavya is a modern term). Although invariably bracketed together, the two epics were then defined by different terms. The Ramayana was a kavya. Kavya means literature (not just poetry). Das’s historical analysis of the Mahabharata will arouse the interest of the historians. He keeps the main part of his work for the general reader. But he provides a historical framework, and provides interesting historical details in the chronology after the preface and in an appendix entitled ‘Dharma — The story of a word’. These are the keys to the book. Not all historians will agree with his conclusions. But then history is, after all, an enquiry and therefore a debate.

Before we go on to Yudhishthira’s question regarding righteousness, we need to consider the chronology provided by Das, and to ask ourselves what the Mahabharata is. Technically, the Mahabharata is an old tale (puravritta-katha), which is taken to be true. What old tale? And how true is it? Historians think that the Mahabharata is based on the memory of a war between the Aryan tribes, the Kurus and the Panchalas, that might have taken place around 950 BC. A junior branch of the Kauravas, perhaps, joined the Panchalas. The tale was reinvented later as a war between the two Kuru branches, the Kauravas and the Pandavas. The reinvented tale was retold by poet-singers over the generations. In its present written form, the tale reached its final version perhaps around 300 AD. The spiritual work, the Bhagavad-Gita, is said to have been finalized and attached to the Mahabharata. When did the tale reach its present form substantively? Perhaps around 150 BC-0 AD, says Das following some historians. This is quite likely, but other historians, to be safe, say 400 BC-300 AD.

In the course of these critical centuries, Gurcharan Das reminds us that something relevant and extremely important happened. Emperor Ashoka, the Buddhist ruler of the Maurya dynasty, preached the ethical and universalistic dhamma to his subjects and neighbours in a memorable reign dated circa 265-232 BC. A Brahmanical counter-ideology then took hard shape in the Manusamhita, around 100 BC-100 AD. He suggests that the bulk of the present Mahabharata was posterior to Buddhism and to the preaching of the dhamma by Ashoka. The epic is the Brahmanical version of the dharma, and the work in its bulk precedes Manu’s Brahmanical reaction against Buddhism. This is the consensus of the present scholarship on the Mahabharata abroad (there has not been much remarkable Indian scholarship on this recently). On the whole, this reconstruction seems to be reasonable. Alf Hiltebeitel has suggested, in a recent study dated 2001, that the epic was composed in the relatively shorter period from 150 BC to 0 AD. This makes Yudhishthira (a short-hand for the dharma in the Mahabharata) one century later than Ashoka and an elder to Manu. Like Ashoka, he is deeply concerned with righteousness, and is not so anxious about a social code as the rigidly Brahmanical Manu. Nevertheless, the dharma in the Mahabharata and Bhagavad-Gita is undeniably Brahmanical.



More at:

Ethics for All

[Pranav]

In a way the welcome the British essentially got from certain sections of Bengalis should be seen as an attempt to overturn the Mughal regime from this peripheral region.

B, are you sure of this? The timing does not add up. British entry in Bengal coincides with Mughal decay. Moreover, Maratha's were on the rise and had mostly taken care of the Mughals and reduced them to a city state by late 1700's.

AFAIK, The Mughals had withered away, but Bengal was under a rapacious local Nawab. There is a famous quote by Raja Ram Mohan Roy rejoicing about the British overthrow of the Nawab - I can't find it right now. Apparently the local Hindus were going through torment.

[RayC]

Bargis or the Marathas indulged in large scale plundering of the countryside dominated the western part of Bengal for about ten years (1741–1751). Bargi invasions took place almost as an annual event.

The Marathas were called Bargis because they carried, apart from other weapons, Barcha or Barchi. Bargi is a corruption of the Marathi word Bargir who were horsemen and were equipped with Bargirs.

Since they were a perennially plundered Bengal, there was no love lost for the Marathas in Bengal, irrespective of caste or religion. Even to this day, we have a cradle song that is used to put children off to sleep:

chhele ghumalo, pada judalo bargi elo deshe
bulbulite dhan kheyechhe, khajna debo kise?

Roughly translated it means;

When the children fall asleep, silence sets in, the Bargis come to our lands
Bulbulis (birds) have eaten the grains, how shall I pay the rent?

In 1745 (?), the Marathas penetrated into Bakarganj and occasioned alarm in Dacca. They were defeated near Ponabalia by Raja Ram Bhadra Roy, one of my ancestors.

Therefore, when I find that there is an attempt to portray India or Bharat or Hindustan was one entity, and it that 1857 is said to have been a national effort, well planned but badly executed, I am quite perplexed. As a large majority of India cannot reconcile to the idea that Jinnah was ‘secular’ because he fanned the religious divide and divided India for personal glory, one wonders how those in Bengal could break bread with those who plundered, raped and took away the women from Bengal. If one notices, there are many customs in Maharashtra which are common to Bengal, possibly influenced by Bengali women abducted and Bengali women can really be ‘baghinis’! Like the Saraswat Brahmins of Maharashtra have no compunctions of having fish in their cuisine. And though they claim descent from ‘north India’, no north Indian Brahmins were fish or meat eaters!!!!

I also fail to see the common cause between Bahadur Shah Zaffar and the Marathas, be it Nana Saheb, Rani of Jhansi or Tantiya Tope, when the Marathas have been at war with the Mughals throughout history!

Can the Marathas forget Shrimant Shahu Sambhaji Raje Bhonsle Chhatrapati Maharaj (1682-1749) who was the fourth ruler of the Maratha Empire and who had to suffer the ignominy of imprisonment at the hands of the Mughal for 7 years?

Therefore, I cannot reconcile to the romanticism of India having been one Nation and with a common cause in 1857. Even today, we are not one internally. We are discussing the value of the national language, the poor man Raj Thakeray is so concerned about the Marathi manus and forgetting that in Haryana there is a sizeable Marathi speaking people who similarly can be harassed and kicked out or as some may even go to the extent that Mahrashtrian Ministers have no right to live in Delhi and so on. Ridiculous! And when we have sacrificed so much throughout history and have, for the first time, an entity called India in all its components, we are still a divided lot and to believe that in the past in 1857 we were one!! Emotions and facts are strange bedfellows!

I wonder!


A background to Bargis

This is for Wikipedia since time at this hour is not at my disposal!

Alivardi Khan became Nawab of Bengal in April 1740, after defeating and killing Sarfraz Khan. His rule was challenged by Sarfraj Khan’s brother-in-law Rustam Jung, who was naib nazim (deputy governor) of Orissa. Alivardi defeated him in a battle at Falwaei, near Balasore, placed his own nephew as naib nazim of Orissa and left for his capital, Murshidabad. Rustam Jung sought the assistance of the Maratha ruler of Nagpur, Raghoji I Bhonsle. He regained control of Orissa with the assistance of Marathas, who in the process discovered how easy it was to plunder the rich countryside in Bengal. Alivardi returned to Orissa and again defeated Rustam Jung, but before he returned to Murshidabad, a Maratha cavalry under Bhaskar Pandit was sent to Bengal by Bhonsle. They entered through Panchet and started looting the countryside.
For about ten years, the Bargis raided and plundered Bengal every year. Contemporary chroniclers have left behind vivid descriptions of Bargi terror, their hit-and-run tactics and the helplesness of the Nawabab’s army in checking them. Alivardi showed exemplary courage and military skill in every frontal battle that took place, but the objective of the Bargis was not occupation of territory but plundering. The Nawab’s soldiers could not match the Maratha horsemen in speed and manoevureability. Only the Ganges - Bhagirathi river line proved a barrier to their movement. They crossed it only on a few occasions.
The Bargi invasions came to an end in May 1751 after the Nawab and the Marathas reached an agreement, including the secession of Orissa.

An aside to those who tomtom Hinduvta and Indic and that the invaders be they Moslem or British did not influence India:

Brahmins never ate meat or onions and garlic. How come they are doing so now. Some even eat beef and flaunt it as an 'achievement', especially those who have been abroad or live there!

How did this take place, if we are but creatures prompted by Hinduvta and Indic cultures?

It is time we face reality and shed delusions encouraged by romanticism. Society is but an evolution of environmental influences and constraints!

We must never forget our heritage but should be careful to make it a cause célèbre that only divides and not unites.

With so many barbarians at the gate, internally and externally, the aim should be to project a solid unified front!

[Sanku]

I also fail to see the common cause between Bahadur Shah Zaffar and the Marathas, be it Nana Saheb, Rani of Jhansi or Tantiya Tope, when the Marathas have been at war with the Mughals throughout history!

Can the Marathas forget Shrimant Shahu Sambhaji Raje Bhonsle Chhatrapati Maharaj (1682-1749) who was the fourth ruler of the Maratha Empire and who had to suffer the ignominy of imprisonment at the hands of the Mughal for 7 years?

Yet they did, and Savarakar sums it up beautifully

also, felt that the meaning of “Hindusthan” was thereafter the united nation of the adherents of Islam as well as Hinduism. As long as the Mahomedans lived in India in the capacity of the alien rulers, so long, to be willing to live with them like brothers was to acknowledge national weakness. Hence, it was, up to then, necessary for the Hindus to consider the Mahomedans as foreigners. And moreover this rulership of the Mahomedans, Guru Govind in the Panjab, Rana Pratap in Rajputana, Chhatrasal in Bundelkhand, and the Maharattas by even sitting upon the throne at Delhi, had destroyed; and, after a struggle of centuries, Hindu sovereignty had defeated the rulership of the Mahomedans and had come to its own all over India. It was no national shame to join hands with Mahomedans then, but it would, on the contrary, be an act of generosity. So, now, the original antagonism between the Hindus and the Mahomedans might be consigned to the Past. Their present relation was one not of rulers and ruled, foreigner and native, but simply that of brothers with the one difference between them of religion alone. For, they were both children of the soil of Hindusthan. Their names were different, but they were all children of the same Mother; India therefore being the common mother of these two, they were brothers by blood

Yes historical animosities exist, but Indians have shown that repeatedly that they do come together forging a common identity when there is need forgetting the older animosities.

We do not behave like tribal socities like those of Europe or Arabia -- if that was so we would still be fighting internall but we dont.

There is no reason to assume that our generation of Indians is somehow special than that in 1857. If we can do it after 1947 (and many times before in the past) it stands to reason that folks could do it in 1857.

Rajputs could and did ally with Mughals when needed too, so whats the big deal about 1857?

-------------

Bargis need another explanation and I will get to it.

[Atri]

Bengal Maratha Issue - The Timeline

The gist of Issue is as follows..

1731 - Kanhoji Bhosle gets Sanad to subjugate Bengal

1727 - Murshid Qulikhan died

1740 - Alivadri khan kills Sarfaraz Khan, son on law of Navab of bengal
- Mir Habib rises to Prominance as Deputy Navab

1741 - Mir Habib comes to nagpur and urges Bhaskar Pandit to invade Bengl. raghuji Bhosle is on Karnataka expedition and hence the invasion is postponed.

Dussehra, 1741 - Bhaskar Ram Pandit marches to invade bengal, on invitation of Mir Habib

15 th April 1742 - Bhaskar Pandit defeats forces of Alivardi Khan. Khan escapes as Pandit demands 10 lakh rupees as tribute.

May 1742 - Pandit returns to nagpur as is the tradition.
- Mir Habib with his Maratha light cavalry under his command captures Murshidabad.

Monsoon 1742 - Marathas and Mir Habib establish their sway as far as Calcutta. British dig a ditch around their factory known as Maratha Ditch

18th sept 1742 - Alivardi Khan attacks Maratha camp who are busy celebrating Durga pooja, and defeats them. Bhaskar Pandit asks for re inforcements from nagpur. But they do not arrive in time. Alivardi returns to moorshidabad.

1742 - Meanwhile, Alivardi asks for help from nanasaheb peshva who agrees to help Alivardi. Peshwa - Alivardi meet takes place on 17th March 1743 near Plassey. Alivardi accepts the supremacy of Marathas and agrees to pay annual Chauth to Peshwa along with 22 lakh rupees as expedition expenses.

April 1743 - Peshwa army defeats Bhaskar Pandit's army.

31st August 1743 - Peace pact signed between Raghuji Bhosle and Peshwa by the mediation of Chhatrapati Shahu, King of Marathas. By this, all the territory from Berar to the east reaching Katak, Bengal and Lucknow was assigned to Raghuji, and that to the west of this line including Ajmer, Agra, Prayag and Malva to Balaji Pesva. None was to interfere with other's sphere.

1744 - Bhaskar pandit re-invades Bengal. Meanwhile bengal continues to pay Chauthai to marathas.

31 March 1744 - Bhaskar Ram Pandit killed by nawab during a parley.

Late 1744 - Raghuji Himselves invades bengal to avenge Bhaskar pandit's assassination. Conqueres region upto Hugli in 1745.

21 November 1746 - Alivardi defeated in a battle which resulted in stalemate. raghuji came back to nagpur, Alivardi retreats to moorshidabad.

1746 - maratha Army defeated by Alivardi Khan.

1747-1748 - Alivardi slowly recaptures territory. captures balasore and returns.

1749 - Marathas under Janakoji Bhosle and Mir habib reappear. Invade Bengal and recapture most of their preoccupied territory till midnapur.

1750 - Alivardi Harrassed and routed time and again. From October 1749 to March 1751, the Marathas did not allow Alivardi to rest. They harassed him by avoiding an open war when he came out with a large army form mursidabad. In 1750 when Alivardi was at midnapur the Marathas quickly marched towards Mursidabad plundering all the way. Durlabhram and Mir Jafar the officers who were stantioned at midnapur were nervous and unable to check the Maratha inroads. This lingering war was a great drain on Alivardi's resources and men. The territory under him was a house divided against itself. In 1750 Alivardi was a man of 75, physically ailing. As the situation was intolerable, his shrewd wife advised him to negotiate with the Marathas.

1751 - Treaty signed in which Alivardi again accepted the maratha supremacy and agree to pay Chauthai to Marathas.
1. Mir Habib was to be confirmed in the government of Orissa as the deputy Subhedar of Mursidabad.
2. The Navab was to pay annually 12 lacs of rupees to the Bhosles of Nagpur for the Cauthai of Bengal and Bihar.
3. When these amounts were regularly paid, the Bhosles were not to harass the two provinces.
4. The District of Katak, i. E., the territory up to the river Suvanrnarekha was to be considered as the possession of the Bhosles.

In turn, Marathas relinquished the claim on the region beyond Katak to Bengal.

And then there was peace between Marathas and Bengal. Alivardi Khan died soon. Siraj was defeated at plassey by british. Meanwhile Marathas had conquered Punjab and region all the way upto Attock and Peshawar. Thus, by the end of 1760, Maratha empire was at its zenith.

http://www.nagpuronline.com/nagpurcolle ... hu1rb.html

Comments -

* There is nothing wrong in plundering enemy territory. It saps enemy strength and increase the state's resources. Bengal was enemy of Marathas which was rich and weak and hence easy pickings. Marathas tried to incorporate Bengal in their empire, but could not establish firm and peaceful control for long time, and hence could not show the magnanimity that a ruler should show, which they had showed in other provinces which were firmly under their control. So Bengal remained a war zone and an enemy territory for long time.

* Shivaji and later Marathas also plundered Surat, Junnar (maharashtra), Burhanpur, Aurangabad, Delhi, Jaipur, Lahore and Attock and Tanjore and everything which lay in their path as enemy territory. Just that, there could never be a stable Maratha rule in Bengal as they could not defeat Alivardi decisively, owing to their lack of capabilities of crossing the rivers effectively. After the treaty, Odisha flourished quite a bit under Maratha occupation. After stable occupation, many of these regions flourished under Maratha rule, especially the religious centres and temples. However, overall, 18th century remained a century of continuous warfare.

* All this in mind, one should not forget the nationalistic service done by marathas. They were thoughtful enough to consider India as one nation and Abdali as foreigner against whom "Rashtra" should be protected. If one cares to read the official declaration of Panipat campaign and subsequent letters of Sadashivrao Bhau to various people, the basic theme which resonates is Mughals are our people and they need to be protected from outsiders. When Nadir Shah invaded Delhi, Bajirao-1 set out from Pune to defeat him. Unfortunately, he died on the way and Nadir Shah had returned by then.

* The sense of Indian nationalism was clearly seen from the actions of marathas, just that it was not defined in crystalline sense as it is today. Furthermore, few sources claim that the real aim of Panipat campaign was to end the Mughal dynasty and install Vishwasrao on the throne of Delhi, if everything went as it was planned. This coherence in sanskritik unity (civilizational unity) is the characteristic of India.

* The expanse of Bhaarat lies as far as the influence of its Sanskriti. This is also seen in pledge of Shivaji when he took an oath of liberating all the holy rivers of India from mlenchha occupation and establish Hindavi Swarajya (Indian self-rule).

[Sanku]

In both the Madras and Bombay armies, the British had from the beginning made little as possibly of caste. The troops irrespective of caste stood in the ranks without any regards of their position in the world outside and ate and slept together without any regards to their differences.

Actually no, its just that the entire caste composition of the Madras and the Bombay armies was different.

The caste composition of warrior class in the gangetic belt (which includes Bengal RayC) was different from that in the other areas.

For example we do not know of Brahmins warrior caste in South in that period, but more than half of BIA was Brahmin warrior before 1857 esp in the north.

The British arbitrarily added high and low to basically warrior castes groups.

Thus, while the non Indo Gangetic plain were of the egalitarian temperament, the Indo Gangetic dwellers were always in the game of 'oneupmanship' (even today if one observes the cowbelt states) and hence possibly the fallout that they believe and want others to believe that they are the Core of India.

Sorry that interpretation is totally flawed. Any simple interaction with the Brahmins of Maharashtra or South should correct that immediately. Esp in the pre independence era. If anything they were more staunch about the rules of Caste living.

This is pure false Nehruvian/Thaparetic reconstructed history which has no basis in reality.

And there came the distinction between ‘martial’ and ‘non martial’ and this divide also helped in giving an elitist boost to the ‘martial’ castes and since they had greater privileges from the British Empire than those who were not in the military service, their loyalty was thus assured to a greater extent.

First Bengalis were considered to be non martial because they resisted the British in Plassey, there fore the Bengal army was from rest of the North Indian warrior caste.

After 1857 that definition was again changed based on convenience.

Clever that the British were, they also ensured that those who could affect the opinion of the populace i.e. Brahmins and other non martial higher castes were equally appeased by giving them posts in the Administration. They retained their position in society but were made toothless to incite another rebellion.

1) Brahmins are not non martial caste in North India including Bengal RayC.

2) They used them for administration because they were all they had not out of choice.

Ever heard of Kaystha RayC, they are the real administrator class in NI for ages.

[brihaspati]

Gurcharan Das or his review by professional historians, probably are better fitted for the "Distorted history" thread? Almost everything that I can see in this brief review is total b*******. I have long ceased to expect any rationality in so-called professional historians and almost complete absence of any logic. They stubbornly refuse to consider alternative hypotheses that can give same observations, and are never trained to analyze on the basis of logical procedures adopted in the exact sciences. Especially how to try and test competing hypothesis, and be able to clearly recognize and state the assumptions based on which the conclusions are drawn. I am sure a lot of gurus here would like to sink their teeth in the analysis glimpsed here of Das, but better dissected on the "distorted history" thread.

[brihaspati]

Sanku-ji,
the strict claims of professional segregatrion by caste in "Hindu" society is a myth of recent colonial origins. There is no strong argument anywhere that bans the Brahmin from taking up arms if needed - in the classical literature. Similarly many kayastha families would have Brahmin gotras and the upabeetam to be able to do rituals on their own. There is also a category of "brahmakshatryias". The famous example of Parashuram and Drona is often used to show that the "shastras" do not ban Brahmins from becoming warriors.

So even RayC is not breaking custom or going against "shastras" when he takes up his position in the army. No great "caste breaking" revolution here! (I am estimating that he hails originally, several generations back, from a Brahmin gotra and lineage. Apologies in advance if I am wrong)

The so-called strict caste divisions are really imaginary constructs revived by the British historians and interpreters based on textual claims in the 19th century. There is a lot of research into how great a disruption the British brought in the social organization of Indian society by imposing or reconstructing legal concepts and constructs that were simply taken out of scattered claims in various texts (both Hindus and Muslims) but were completely out of touch with reality.

We should remember that historians typically dismiss all claims in texts by Islamic scholars, of repressive measures as simply loud-mouthed fantasy aimed at self-glorification and propaganda - BUT NEVER EVER REALLY APPLIED OR PRACTISED. Why not extend it to the supposedly even more "evil big bad hindu fascists" of the past, who wrote and copied texts like Manusamhita etc also as similarly motivated and as loud-mouthed fantasy aimed at self-glorification and propaganda? After all any logic used to support this demand for Islamic texts will be applicable to the "Hindu brahmin sribes" too. No archaeological or independently verifiable proof of caste based trauma and contemporary testimony form the "victim" side!

[surinder]

Gurcharan Das neither understands Hinduism, nor any other religion. He is the so-called "liberal" type who are disconnected with their own roots & past. I once read a peice by him and decided that I don't want to read his outputs.

[Abhi_G]

Bengal should remember the writings on Shivaji, Guru Govind Singh and Banda Bairagi by Tagore. Notwithstanding the fact that the bargis (later Marathas) had devastated Bengal, in a span of 150 years, Tagore writes "Shivaji Utsav". Like all poets, he is a romantic and complex character and his political ideology does change at various points of time. But his writings do hint to the fact that nationalistic revival is impossible without some amount of inspiring literature about past heroes. This is not just the truth for Bharat but as I see, exhalting warriors from the past history is a practice throughout the world. It seems that Hindus detract themselves scathingly as a defeated nation, their epics are but "mithya" (lies) and every heroism from the past has to be checked under a microscope and put to the "politically correct" examination. No other people around the world is subject to such hair splitting examination.

[surinder]

In a nation that is populated by people who are stingy in complimenting heroes from other regions, Rabindranath Thakur stands out in a stark surprising contrast. He spoke very hightly of Sikh heroes, and what is very surprising is he wrote about the obscure Banda Singh Bahadur, who Sikhs themselves, even today, (for a combination of reasons) have shut out.

And there is a method to his "madness", the types of heroes he admires and writes about.

[ramana]

Bengal should remember the writings on Shivaji, Guru Govind Singh and Banda Bairagi by Tagore. Notwithstanding the fact that the bargis (later Marathas) had devastated Bengal, in a span of 150 years, Tagore writes "Shivaji Utsav". Like all poets, he is a romantic and complex character and his political ideology does change at various points of time. But his writings do hint to the fact that nationalistic revival is impossible without some amount of inspiring literature about past heroes. This is not just the truth for Bharat but as I see, exhalting warriors from the past history is a practice throughout the world. It seems that Hindus detract themselves scathingly as a defeated nation, their epics are but "mithya" (lies) and every heroism from the past has to be checked under a microscope and put to the "politically correct" examination. No other people around the world is subject to such hair splitting examination.

I think in post_Independence India, Amar Chitra Katha series has done a lot to fill this gap and has inspired many people to look at their own heros instead of adopting and hankering after otehr people's heros. My interest in history was provoked from reading ACK and trying to know more about the heroes they wrote about. Before that my elder brother's generation had to read Hakluyt's voyages, Rollands song, Rustom and Shorab all non-Indic hero figures. I read those too as the books were in the home anbut got enriched by ACK.

Folks always consider everything as feedback. Gurucharan Das was stirred enough to seek lessons from the Mahabharat. Thank God he didn't go to Bible as a WOG!

When one disagrees one should be articulate enough to say why, how and what we disagree. That is the begining of the inellectual tradition.

RayC, Thanks for the review. I posted a similar one in the Best Sellers thread in the GDF.

[svinayak]

It seems that Hindus detract themselves scathingly as a defeated nation, their epics are but "mithya" (lies) and every heroism from the past has to be checked under a microscope and put to the "politically correct" examination. No other people around the world is subject to such hair splitting examination

This is due to the marxist deconstruction of the Hindu history.
http://www.voiceofdharma.com/books/dist/ch1.htm#2
http://www.voiceofdharma.com/books/dist/

[RayC]

Yes historical animosities exist, but Indians have shown that repeatedly that they do come together forging a common identity when there is need forgetting the older animosities.

We do not behave like tribal socities like those of Europe or Arabia -- if that was so we would still be fighting internall but we dont.

There is no reason to assume that our generation of Indians is somehow special than that in 1857. If we can do it after 1947 (and many times before in the past) it stands to reason that folks could do it in 1857.

Rajputs could and did ally with Mughals when needed too, so whats the big deal about 1857?

Historical animosity exist and we all come together to forge a common identity.

Noble words and laudable indeed! How come then we did not forge the same common indenty as you claim exists wherein older animosities are forgotten in our struggle for Independence which led to the division of India?

Or having communal riots thereafter?

Odd logic!

There is nothing wrong in plundering enemy territory. It saps enemy strength and increase the state's resources. Bengal was enemy of Marathas which was rich and weak and hence easy pickings. Marathas tried to incorporate Bengal in their empire, but could not establish firm and peaceful control for long time, and hence could not show the magnanimity that a ruler should show, which they had showed in other provinces which were firmly under their control. So Bengal remained a war zone and an enemy territory for long time.

Indeed there is nothing wrong in plundering enemy territory. So you agree that Bengal was enemy territory of the Marathas.

Since you all love to quote Rabindranath, there is a gem which states – you can be a friend of your enemy through the lack of character! I think that sums it up!

By the logic in the post under review, it was fair of the Marathas to conquer Bengal and bring peace and harmony because Bengal was enemy territory. Fair enough! There is immense consternation with China, especially of late, and they are our enemy. So, should we capitulate to them just because of peace and harmony and they are right that we are the enemy and so they can plunder our country? Who knows that at a future date Chinese and Indians would be friends as we all are in India?

All this in mind, one should not forget the nationalistic service done by marathas. They were thoughtful enough to consider India as one nation and Abdali as foreigner against whom "Rashtra" should be protected. If one cares to read the official declaration of Panipat campaign and subsequent letters of Sadashivrao Bhau to various people, the basic theme which resonates is Mughals are our people and they need to be protected from outsiders. When Nadir Shah invaded Delhi, Bajirao-1 set out from Pune to defeat him. Unfortunately, he died on the way and Nadir Shah had returned by then.

If the Marathas were doing nationalist service and Abdali was a foreigner, then shouldn’t the Bengalis have helped the Marathas? If not, why not? Do produce some proof that the Marathas considered India as one Nation. If Mughals were ‘our people’, why was Abdali a ‘foreigner’ to wage war upon? Were Mughal of indigenous stock?

The expanse of Bhaarat lies as far as the influence of its Sanskriti. This is also seen in pledge of Shivaji when he took an oath of liberating all the holy rivers of India from mlenchha occupation and establish Hindavi Swarajya (Indian self-rule).

Now, if the aim was to remove the mlechhas, then how are we justifying that 1857 was a common cause. Mlechhas remain mlechhas even today, though PC has toned it down!

Actually no, its just that the entire caste composition of the Madras and the Bombay armies was different.

The caste composition of warrior class in the gangetic belt (which includes Bengal RayC) was different from that in the other areas.

For example we do not know of Brahmins warrior caste in South in that period, but more than half of BIA was Brahmin warrior before 1857 esp in the north.

The British arbitrarily added high and low to basically warrior castes groups.

If you read and you will realise the difference in the Bombay and the Madras Presidency Army and the Bengal Presidency Army.

The Battle of Koregaon took place on January 1, 1818, at the bank of river Bhima in Koregaon (Maharashtra State, India), situated on the north west of Pune. A small force of 500 men of the 2nd Battalion 1st Regiment of the Bombay Native Light Infantry mostly Mahar under the command of Capt. F. F. Staunton fought without rest or respite, food or water continuously for twelve hours against a large force of 20,000 horse and 8,000 infantry of Maratha Leader Peshwa Baji Rao II who was threatening the British garrisons at Kirkee and Poona. In this force, there were other non Mahars too.

Of course, if you know my Regimental history better, who am I to contest!

Sorry that interpretation is totally flawed. Any simple interaction with the Brahmins of Maharashtra or South should correct that immediately. Esp in the pre independence era. If anything they were more staunch about the rules of Caste living.

This is pure false Nehruvian/Thaparetic reconstructed history which has no basis in reality.

I presume the Battle of Koregaon answer your issue.

However, I am open to being educated since history can be tweaked (as is being done) to suit an agenda!

First Bengalis were considered to be non martial because they resisted the British in Plassey, there fore the Bengal army was from rest of the North Indian warrior caste. After 1857 that definition was again changed based on convenience.

1) Brahmins are not non martial caste in North India including Bengal RayC.

2) They used them for administration because they were all they had not out of choice.

Ever heard of Kaystha RayC, they are the real administrator class in NI for ages.

No I have never heard of a caste called Kayastas. Caste was never a big deal in Bengal in my times. Even in our in the days of yore (before Partition) ancestral home (my mother's) Kali Puja, the idol were brought in by the Moslem land tillers as a ritual! I am looking forward to attend the Kali Puja at my Uncle's home who keeps the tradition alive and the family (maternal side) is descending from across the globe as they usually do!

In UP, they were administrators but not warriors so I learn.

Brahmins are as good warriors as the next man Jack. My scheduled caste Bengalis , Oriyas and Gujaratis were braver than my so called ‘martial races’ in when I led them in an operation and never hesitated in mentioning it openly so that the ‘martial races’ woke up to the fact and performed as per the popular notion. It was a dangerous thing to do since we were at war and the majority were the ‘martial races’. Fortunately, I presume I was a just man since I pandered to every issue that was unfair, no matter who it was. Twice in my ACR it was endorsed that I called ‘a spade a spade’. This is not something that is written under the normal circumstances. You can see it here – while my heart would love to believe that 1857 was the First War of Independence and highly coordinated and all that, the facts (as I understand) belies the idea and much that it would be prudent to withdraw and let delusions take grip, I wage a lonely battle!

Brahmins, in those days influenced the Hindu society. Like it or not. They were behind the whipping up of frenzy in 1857. The British, clever that they are, just ensured they have no place in the Army. Are you aware that even though the British had a huge requirement of manpower in WW II, Bengalis were not considered since they were taken to be terrorists? Lionel Bogey Sen, was sent to Sandhurst because his mother was British, but my father wasn’t. His cousin was from the Anoshilan Party. Later he joined, but with great difficulty to prove his credential. And both were related!!

So, let emotions not blur reality!

Gentlemen,

Don't mind if I appear in banterer mood. I do so with a purpose. It will ignite you to answer with an opposite viewpoint and in the bargain, I shall learn.

Raman,

Can you give the link to GDF?

Should I buy the book or should I not. I don't want to waste money.

Rajat is my brother in law, but I have my own views of his writings!

[ramana]

Here is the link to the Best Sellers thread in GDF.

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... a&start=80

[Abhi_G]

So basically the issue is this:

Mughals devastate India, employs Rajput generals (exception Mewar never accepted Mughal supremacy),
Sikhs and Marathas devastate Mughals,
later Marathas (bargis) devastate Bengal,
eventually brits devastate Sikh empire using Purbiya soldiers,
brits devastate Marathas using same soldiers(?).

Period of confusion (matsanyay), where core is very weak. Some parts of core tries 1857 at this time, mismanages and fails. Within 100 years of that freedom fighters arise, India is granted independence. So core waxens and wanes and we always have a handsome number of collaborators (even today?) at all times? Is this India specific or India is the only country that is being targetted severely all the times? Because the core has not been destroyed yet?

[ramana]

So basically the issue is this:

Turkic Islamic invaders and then Mughals devastate India, employs Rajput generals,

Sikhs and Marathas devastate Mughals,

later Marathas (bargis) devastate Bengal,
Brits devastate Marathas using same soldiers(?).
eventually Brits devastate Sikh empire using Purbiya soldiers,


Period of confusion (matsanyay), where core is very weak. Some parts of core tries 1857 uprising at this time. Within 100 years of that freedom fighters arise, India gains (is granted )independence. So core waxens and wanes?

The Arab invasion of Sind was minor event and largely confined. However the Turkic-Afghan takeover of Afghanistan and West Punjab led to the more permanent conquests in Indian sub-continent.

[RayC]

we always have a handsome number of collaborators (even today?)?

Any guess?

[svinayak]

Within 100 years of that freedom fighters arise, India is granted independence. So core waxens and wanes?

The west - British withdraws in 1947 because in that 100 years they have dominated Asia and trade routes and created a British trading system.

[SwamyG]

Acharya: Can you elaborate on what would a non-British Trading System look like? Its characteristics and nature? Thanks.

[svinayak]

Fernand Braudel, Civilization and Capitalism, 15th-18th Century, in 3 volumes, New York: Harper and Row, 1981-84, original editions in French, 1979.

http://books.google.com/books?id=xMZI2Q ... q=&f=false

http://eh.net/bookreviews/library/heston
Read the Far East chapter

Originally published in the early 1980s, Civilization traces the social and economic history of the world from the Middle Ages to the Industrial Revolution, although his primary focus is Europe. Braudel skims over politics, wars, etc., in favor of examining life at the grass roots: food, drink, clothing, housing, town markets, money, credit, technology, the growth of towns and cities, and more.

[SwamyG]

^^^
Acharya - The google books do not have several pages in the 'Far East' section. Can you give your thoughts in a few sentences?

[svinayak]

^^^
Acharya - The google books do not have several pages in the 'Far East' section. Can you give your thoughts in a few sentences?

There are many reviews of this 3 vol book. You can google them.

In his masterly and majestic survey of world history, the eminent historian Fernand Braudel refers to India and East Asia as the ‘greatest of all the world economies’ of the pre-industrial, pre-capitalist era. Braudel talks of the ‘Far East’ as comprising ‘three gigantic world-economies’: ‘Islam, overlooking the Indian Ocean from the Red Sea and the Persian Gulf, and controlling the endless chain of deserts stretching across Asia from Arabia to China; India, whose influence extended throughout the Indian Ocean, both east and west of Cape Comorin; and China, at once a great territorial power – striking deep into the heart of Asia – and a maritime force, controlling the seas and countries bordering the Pacific. And so it had been for many hundreds of years.’
‘The relationship between these huge areas,’ says Braudel, ‘was the result of a series of pendulum movements of greater or lesser strength, either side of the centrally positioned Indian subcontinent. The swing might benefit first the East and then the West, redistributing functions, power and political or economic advance. Through all these vicissitudes however, India maintained her central position: her merchants in Gujarat and on the Malabar and Coromandel coasts prevailed for centuries on end against their many competitors – the Arab traders of the Red Sea, the Persian merchants of the Gulf, or the Chinese merchants familiar with the Indonesian seas to which their junks were now regular visitors.’
Discussing the place of the ‘East Indies’ in this ‘Asian Super World Economy’, Braudel adds: ‘The logical confluence of trade, the crossroads lying at the centre of this super world economy could hardly be elsewhere than in the East Indies.
On the eastern side of the Ocean, Indian contacts date to in prehistory, but about 2000 BCE wealth became apparent generating a constant flow of traders, adventurers and priests to the Malay Peninsula (Sandhu 174). Likewise Chinese settlement predated the European arrival in the Malacca Straits. (Clammer 157) As the meeting place between the Indian and Chinese centers, the markets of Indonesia were filled with foreign merchants when the Dutch arrived (Petronel 237). By the 1740s thousands of Chinese migrant laborers were in Bangka mining tin. (Vol 15)
As the British Empire rises to dominate the world, and the African slave trade declines, the Indian Diaspora takes on enormous proportions, as Indians from all strata are central to the British military and commercial networks.

[SwamyG]

Looks like you do not have the time or do not want to put it in your own words. I want to hear from your mouth about what British Trading System is about. But thanks for pointing the book to me.

[Sanku]

Historical animosity exist and we all come together to forge a common identity.

Noble words and laudable indeed! How come then we did not forge the same common indenty as you claim exists wherein older animosities are forgotten in our struggle for Independence which led to the division of India?

Or having communal riots thereafter?

Odd logic!

Not at all, this appears odd to you since you are looking at the situation as either exists or does not exist (BTW a typical Greek based western thinking, from a stand point of schools of logic)

The situation is clearly not that, in India we are capable of thinking it exists and the non existence also exists (takes some getting used to for the western mindset)

Even in simplistic terms the question is "how much exists" any number between 0 and 1 so to say. 0.75, 0.8 etc etc.

So the existence of both historical animosity and problems because of that, as WELL as giving up of those to form common bonds all exist.

No problem with that at all.

Indeed there is nothing wrong in plundering enemy territory. So you agree that Bengal was enemy territory of the Marathas.

Any territory ruled by your enemy is enemy territory, if Mughals did not plunder Bengal it would have been plundered by the Mughals. A different sense of morality prevails in circumstances where your brother is working for your enemy.

INA did not have problem fighting BIA since they were enemies of India. Should we have problems with that too?

There is immense consternation with China, especially of late, and they are our enemy. So, should we capitulate to them just because of peace and harmony and they are right that we are the enemy and so they can plunder our country? Who knows that at a future date Chinese and Indians would be friends as we all are in India?

Wrong comparison, the right comparison would be tomorrow if we conquer China we should treat China like our own and kindly. That is the Indian way.

If the Marathas were doing nationalist service and Abdali was a foreigner, then shouldn’t the Bengalis have helped the Marathas? If not, why not? Do produce some proof that the Marathas considered India as one Nation. If Mughals were ‘our people’, why was Abdali a ‘foreigner’ to wage war upon? Were Mughal of indigenous stock?

I am not sure about Bengal but pretty much every where else the Indians even under the service of Mughals did help Marathas. Of course there were mistakes made too, but then there are always some mistakes.

Even then Indians would have to balance between the the dharma of sworn loyalty to a ruler vs basic and natural loyalty to land. No doubt same issues must have been in the minds of Indian armies fighting Netaji.

Now, if the aim was to remove the mlechhas, then how are we justifying that 1857 was a common cause. Mlechhas remain mlechhas even today, though PC has toned it down!

RayC please read the paragraph from Savarkar I posted. By 1857 things had changed. The Maleechas were routed mostly, only some converted Indians remained.

Conditions are not fixed in stone -- things change and the causes are well documented. There is no issue with IMs, the issue was with forgeiners using Islam with claims of being superior ideology different from the roots.

An Indic Muslim is not an enemy.

This has been mentioned so many times before.

If you read and you will realise the difference in the Bombay and the Madras Presidency Army and the Bengal Presidency Army.

I am well aware of the differences. I mentioned that too. However you are the one who is extrapolating those difference to mean things that dont exist.

I presume the Battle of Koregaon answer your issue.

Sorry again nothing in the battle of Koregaon supports your theory of Bombay army being more cosmopolitan that Bengal one. In fact you posted "around 500 men mostly mahars" Sure that is what I said too, just that different caste groups were part of Bengal and Bombay armies. That is all.

Mahars primarily in Bombay army and the other caste groups in Northern Indian armies.

Rest is all the same.

However, I am open to being educated since history can be tweaked (as is being done) to suit an agenda!

I have a simple agenda -- Satyameva Jayate

In UP, they were administrators but not warriors so I learn.

Who?

Brahmins, in those days influenced the Hindu society. Like it or not. They were behind the whipping up of frenzy in 1857. The British, clever that they are, just ensured they have no place in the Army. Are you aware that even though the British had a huge requirement of manpower in WW II, Bengalis were not considered since they were taken to be terrorists?

But that's what I am saying too RayC, classically the Brahmins were also a fighting arm and a very martial race in North India as were large sections of Bengali's. The Bengali's were dropped first and then the high caste hindu's in that list as per British convenience.

I am only saying that the whole concept of Martial race is a British invention along with assigning high and low to castes and linking a caste strong with an occupation. That was not so prior to British.

Yes the Brahmins were influential -- everywhere in India.

[shiv]

I am only saying that the whole concept of Martial race is a British invention along with assigning high and low to castes and linking a caste strong with an occupation. That was not so prior to British.
.

This is correct. Here are two Pakistani reference about the "martial mind" of Pakis that I used in my e book

http://www.defencejournal.com/2000/nov/pak-army.htm
http://www.defencejournal.com/2002/july/martial.htm

From the former (by Maj Humayun)

History was distorted to show that the Muslims were ruling the timid Hindu when the British snatched power from the brave Muslims by treachery! This was sadly not the case! In reality the Muslims were saved from total defeat by the British advent in India! A false image was formed by official propaganda right from 1947 that the Muslims were more martial than the timid Hindus were! It was a poor modification of the "Martial Races Theory" of the British, which was a purely imperialist theory to "Divide and Rule" India!

The reader may note that during the period 1885—1911 when the ethnic composition of the British Indian Army changed from a Hindustani majority/Hindu/Non Muslim dominated army to a Punjabi Majority/Punjabi Muslim heavy army in 1911; no major war took place; that could prove that Punjabi troops or Punjabi Muslim troops were better than Hindu troops or the Hindustani troops, and the concept that the British changed the ethnic composition based on proven fighting ability in actual combat; has no connection with any reality of military history. Thus the “Martial Races Theory” was based more on political considerations than on any tangible or concrete military effectiveness or relative combat effectiveness in any war! In any case the pre 1947 Indian Army was never a Muslim majority army at any stage of its history.

The "Martial Races Theory" in reality was an Imperial gimmick to boost the ego of the cannon fodder. Various British writers like Philip Mason frankly admitted that the real reason for selective recruitment was political reliability in crisis situations which the Punjabis had exhibited during the 1857-58 Bengal Army rebellion.47 Another British officer thought that "Martial Races Theory" had a more sentimental and administrative basis rather than anything to do with real martial superiority. C.C Trench thus wrote, “Reasons for preferring northerners were largely racial. To Kiplings contemporaries, the taller and fairer a native, the better man he was likely to be…There was a general preference for the wild over the half educated native as being less addicted to unwholesome political thinking…Brahmins had been prominent in the mutiny, and their diet and prejudices made difficulties on active service

[samuel]

it may perhaps be useful as an example of the Indian core to describe how you celebrate diwali (deepavali) and surrounding festivals (say start from dussehra).

[brihaspati]

Veda Vyasa, the putative author of the epic, and Das, the present author, pose moral questions to explore the complex dimensions of the issue, they proceed to relate stories, real or imagined. In short, both teach by examples. In old India, this form of writing was called itihasa. The listeners took the storyteller’s tale to be true. The belief might have been unfounded. Nevertheless, historians concede that elements of historical fact lie embedded in the epic. The business and political stories Das relates from his own contemporary experience, juxtaposing them with the Mahabharata stories (which he re-tells movingly), are, by contrast, based on fact.

Why does Das's juxtaposition become unique and not already there before within the text of the Mahabharata? Just because Das's experiences can be better verified they become facts whereas any of the layers of narratives within the text become non0facts because they are not recent or verifiable? What gives Rajat Ray or Gurcharan Das to dismiss them as non-facts because they cannot be verified? Why do Ray and Das represent an entirely different category human beings from those who might have left their mark on the text of Mahabharata?

How do historians conceded that elements of historical fact lie embedded in the epic? Have there been archaeological proof? No. In the absence of evidence not dependent solely on human interpretation, how do historians select which part of the Mahabharat is real and which part imaginary? What will make these adult grown up and self proclaimed intellects understand that there is a fundamental difference between unverifiability and unreality? Just because something is not verifiable does not make it unreal or non-fact. It can only be stated that current accummulated knowledge is not sufficient to reject or accept conclusively.

What exactly is itihasa? It is not what we historians nowadays understand by ‘history’. The old understanding of the term is captured in a Sanskrit definition in translation: “Itihasa is a tale of old, with advice about dharma (righteousness), artha (power and wealth), Kama (pleasure), and moksha (liberation from the cycle of births and deaths).” It will be seen that this is not professional history as understood in modern times. Nor is the Mahabharata history. It is itihasa. The stories may or may not be true. That does not matter. The truth, as understood here, is greater than fact. Das subjects this work to both historical and moral examination.

Why is the modern interpretation of the term "history" different from "itihasa"? The "eminent" historian Romila Thapar fondly points out a myriad times - that "stones do not speak", it is the sole prerogative of the "professional historian" of a certain school only, to interpret what the "stones speak". Thus both become interpretations of the recorded human experience or memory of another time by other humans.

We see selective interpretation of records, suppression or highlighting to establish certain political and sociological viewpoints in the modern historians too. Some of them have the gall to openly declare that the task of the modern historian is to strengthen and establish the credentials of secularism as envisioned by JLN and prevent "Hindu fascists" to gain upperhand. If history even now is told and retold with an ulterior agenda, why could it it not be done in the past and still remain history?

The Ramayana and the Mahabharata are both called epics now. There was no term for epic then (mahakavya is a modern term). Although invariably bracketed together, the two epics were then defined by different terms. The Ramayana was a kavya. Kavya means literature (not just poetry). Das’s historical analysis of the Mahabharata will arouse the interest of the historians. He keeps the main part of his work for the general reader. But he provides a historical framework, and provides interesting historical details in the chronology after the preface and in an appendix entitled ‘Dharma — The story of a word’. These are the keys to the book. Not all historians will agree with his conclusions. But then history is, after all, an enquiry and therefore a debate.

If history is after all an enquiry and therefore a debate, why are the two "epics" not history? Ray is not even aware that in the same passage, he is using the word "history" in many different meanings he is himself not clear about. If the Mahabharata is a story of Yudhistira's quest for the meaning and clarity of what is "dharma" - it satisfies Ray's definition of history. But then what can be the "historical" framework and "historical detail" in "chronology" ? the range and elements of "enquiry" and "debate"? where does chronology fit in ? Here Ray is using the parallel concept of histoiry he has learnt - that it is an analysis of events and records in time. But even by that criteria Mahabharata becomes a history - for by Das and Ray's admission, the epic is itself an enquiry and debate based on and using records of human experience.

Before we go on to Yudhishthira’s question regarding righteousness, we need to consider the chronology provided by Das, and to ask ourselves what the Mahabharata is. Technically, the Mahabharata is an old tale (puravritta-katha), which is taken to be true. What old tale? And how true is it? Historians think that the Mahabharata is based on the memory of a war between the Aryan tribes, the Kurus and the Panchalas, that might have taken place around 950 BC. A junior branch of the Kauravas, perhaps, joined the Panchalas. The tale was reinvented later as a war between the two Kuru branches, the Kauravas and the Pandavas. The reinvented tale was retold by poet-singers over the generations. In its present written form, the tale reached its final version perhaps around 300 AD. The spiritual work, the Bhagavad-Gita, is said to have been finalized and attached to the Mahabharata. When did the tale reach its present form substantively? Perhaps around 150 BC-0 AD, says Das following some historians. This is quite likely, but other historians, to be safe, say 400 BC-300 AD.

If the memory of the war was that public, how could it be reinvented as a new tale with such drastic alterations in the main protagonists just within 500-600 years? Is this an assumption if not proved? Has this been stated as an assumption? Why do Ray and Das have to carry on this infuriating habit of never stating clearly the assumptions and the logical procedure followed to arrive at date? Are they aware that such a description actually reveals the complete irrationality and lack of wide grasp of the exact and logical sciences in "historians"?

In the course of these critical centuries, Gurcharan Das reminds us that something relevant and extremely important happened. Emperor Ashoka, the Buddhist ruler of the Maurya dynasty, preached the ethical and universalistic dhamma to his subjects and neighbours in a memorable reign dated circa 265-232 BC.

Is Ray at all aware that the only undisputed claims of records of Ashoka's reign come from Buddhist sources? That there are counter opinions to his identification based on the mismatch between coinage and stone pillar inscriptions? What makes records in Buddhist sources free from the same reconstructions and reinventions he accuses the epics of? Das or Ray did not live in his reign. But Ray thinks it was memorable because of what other humans have claimed to record as true and what even other humans have interpreted those records to be. Ray unknowingly shows how personal opinions get layered on to narratives.

A Brahmanical counter-ideology then took hard shape in the Manusamhita, around 100 BC-100 AD. He suggests that the bulk of the present Mahabharata was posterior to Buddhism and to the preaching of the dhamma by Ashoka. The epic is the Brahmanical version of the dharma, and the work in its bulk precedes Manu’s Brahmanical reaction against Buddhism. This is the consensus of the present scholarship on the Mahabharata abroad (there has not been much remarkable Indian scholarship on this recently). On the whole, this reconstruction seems to be reasonable. Alf Hiltebeitel has suggested, in a recent study dated 2001, that the epic was composed in the relatively shorter period from 150 BC to 0 AD. This makes Yudhishthira (a short-hand for the dharma in the Mahabharata) one century later than Ashoka and an elder to Manu. Like Ashoka, he is deeply concerned with righteousness, and is not so anxious about a social code as the rigidly Brahmanical Manu. Nevertheless, the dharma in the Mahabharata and Bhagavad-Gita is undeniably Brahmanical.

Here Ray outdoes himself. In one single passage he explains all the twisted knots Indian historians get themselves into - because they have given up their own right of thinking and analysis. Maybe, to be fair, they are incapable of it and realizing their own severe intellectual incapabilities they simply swallow what scholars "abroad" pontificate on? All these scholars base their starting assumptions on what Indian historians have postulated about the origins and times of Indian history in turn based on what previous scholars "abroad" had postulated about Indian history.

What if Mahabharats roots and the philosophical enquiry about dharma was indeed a much older obsession and predates Buddha? What if Buddha himself (well Ray-mahashay how do we now confirm that Buddha as described really existed, and not a reconstruction or reinvention of a much older character or imagination?) was reinventing and refining or reformulating already existing concepts of dharma?

Das shows that the Yudhishthira of the tale attains the same universality of ethics as the Ashoka of the inscriptions. Dharma had originally a narrower meaning in the Rig-Veda. The word derives from the verb dhri, to uphold — that which holds together the cosmic, the social and the ritual orders. It meant, in the Vedas, the sacrificial rites in the fire (yajna). In the Manusamhita, it means the caste order (varnashrama-dharma). In between the two, dharma attained a universalist ethical dimension.

This sounds so much like the old quote of my history text- "SamudraGupta was the Napoleon" of India (V.A.Smith). The European in Ray thinks in a parallel logic - the character of Yudhisthira based on possible characters before Ashoka based on characters after, borrows from the later character! Ray is so knowledgeable that he fails to see "universalism" in "that which holds together the cosmic" and thinks of it as a "narrower meaning". Was "dharma" defined in the Rig-Vedas to be mere "yajna"? Or is it Ray-mahashay's onw sweet interpretation? Isn't it strange that in between two "narrows" a "high" was obtained? What made the people accept rejection of the "high"?

Ashoka was its historical and Yudhishthira its mythical embodiment. The Mahabharata undeniably upholds the varnashrama-dharma, but it goes beyond, and has ethics for everybody in its riotous assemblage of stories. As Das shows, the stories never simplify the answers: they pose the dilemmas for the men of those times and of ours. Like Ashoka, Yudhishthira never ceases to probe and ponder in the midst of all-encompassing violence.

So the same dilemmas are posed before "men of those times " and "ours"? Why was there violence after Ashoka? So much so that even after his reign people had to face such dilemmas? And then dilemmas do not really change after such long periods? So if concrete situations endanger the same dilemmas why cannot the same situation have occurred before Ashoka, and spawned similar philosophical enquiries? And why then would it have to be restricted to 950 BCE only? Ray-mahashay even does not follow the current "abroad" scholarly practice of writing BCE - any extra special need to prove loyalty to "abroad"?

We may end with Yudhishthira’s answer to the questions posed by the heron. The heron asks, “What is the news?” Yudhishthira answers: “With the sun as fire and days and nights as fuel, time cooks all beings by stirring the ladle of the months and seasons in this cauldron of the great illusion.” This is not the translation cited by Das, but I believe it is exact.

Amen! And thanks again for failing to realize the key in that line - "cauldron of the great illusion" - the basic line of thought in the Upanishads, showing the running thread through RigVeda - the "narrower" thought.

[brihaspati]

The discussion on the Mahabharata and Ramayana, throws up an interesting question to ponder for those who are doubtful of the existence of any core at all.

If they are pure narratives of ethics and literature, why do pmajority of Indians (and several in the non-Hindu as well) still obsess about these narratives? What is the appeal? Mere literature? Mere ethics? Imaginary and imagined histories? What is the root of the fascination? Why does it draw almost the entire country to its retelling - especially if it is retold in "old-fashioned" ways, and not any modern "interpretations"?

If it is indeed a "Brahmanical retelling" of "Buddhist" morals, why does it appeal to and holds the fascination of the vast majority? Since the "Brahminical vision" is supposed to be repressive and therefore "unethical" by the value -systems where repression by any one subgroup on the other is "vile"?

Or is it something else entirely. The epics have been refined to an extent where they distil the philosophy of the core to provide a value system with which people identify? Look upon it as reflecting the core principles as applied to life? Concrete examples to teach mathematics instead of just giving the theory to derive theorems and proofs? The fisrt method is the more popular and easily accessible to everyone and suffices for most practical purposes. The second one is for understanding and those whose mission in life is to go beyond concrete examples only.

Historical event, or human experiences of a particular past time is typically only remembered if it went beyond the mundane and ordinary. They are retold if they are found to contain useful elements to convey messages and valuable learning. They are repeatedly told and refined if they contain elements around which a framework of values and principles can be interwoven. They will be listened to with relish and fascination, if they provide concepts and scenarios for people to identify with and find inspiration or guidance from.

Maybe, we have indeed neglected the epics and its more popular versions to realize what message they really convey and which spellbinds the large majority of even modern Indians. And its even less obvious significance - that they may actually contain a large part of the principles of the "core" still identified with by the majority.

[RayC]

Of course there were mistakes made too, but then there are always some mistakes.

Exactly what the naxal sympathiser ( I forget the name) said in We the People when given an example of children, amongst others, killed by the Naxasl/ Maoists for being govt informers!!

[SBajwa]

Who is a martial race?

Just look around your immediate family and extended family. If you have some percentage of people serving in armed forces or police you are a martial race.

If your mother tells you that it is noble to die defending your motherland in a war than to work to earn money you are a martial race.

That's all there is to the Martial vs Non-Martial races.

Starting with myself., my grand father 30 years ago tells me that "There are only two professions worthy of a man, Soldier or a Farmer (and in that order)" and it is no wonder that Late L.B Shastri coined the slogan of "Jai Jawan Jai Kisan".

I wish that more retired soldiers were in the Parliament making decisions about country.