Correcting Indian History

[someone]

Its a long road ahead. Today, the dharmic side has many activism yet little scholarship. And that's the big difference with the left side which has loads of both activism and scholarship. 

 

We make a lot of noise on social media, events, platforms, but that always has a short life span. Whereas scholarships is about deep research and is ever lasting. Where are our scholars, our deep commitment for research and our own thesis, materials, and books? That is not just about the government. Correcting history or addressing the Hinduphobia is still the material number game, and we don't even have the proper scholars team yet.

 

The non-book centric religion or rather oral based tradition could be one reason, as we don't focus extensively on written materials. Our temples, gurus themselves also traditionally lack the foresight to build their own materials , translations and reaching out to the wider audience...

 

 

[Vijy]

4 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

There is a Hollywood movie on Ghenghis Khan with the great John Wayne playing the lead

 

ah, yes, I have heard of this (turd of a) movie, but have fortunately not seen it. tendency of hollywood to glorify all manner of strange people

[Vijy]

4 minutes ago, someone said:

Its a long road ahead. Today, the dharmic side has many activism yet little scholarship. And that's the big difference with the left side which has loads of both activism and scholarship. 

 

We make a lot of noise on social media, events, platforms, but that always has a short life span. Whereas scholarships is about deep research and is ever lasting. Where are our scholars, our deep commitment for research and our own thesis, materials, and books? That is not just about the government. Correcting history or addressing the Hinduphobia is still the material number game, and we don't even have the proper scholars team yet.

 

The non-book centric religion or rather oral based tradition could be one reason, as we don't focus extensively on written materials. Our temples, gurus themselves also traditionally lack the foresight to build their own materials , translations and reaching out to the wider audience...

 

 

we will see more scholarship focused on a hindu perspective in the future IMO. As someone from maths and the sciences, I can say that the scholarship on Ind contributions to these fields is growing slowly but steadily. for instance, the contribution of hindus from all over india (kerala - kerala school of maths to kashmir - e.g., Vaṭeśvara) to trigonometry, algebra, differential calculus is coming to the forefront

Edited June 23, 2022 by Vijy

[someone]

3 minutes ago, Vijy said:

we will see more scholarship focused on a hindu perspective in the future IMO. As someone from maths and the sciences, I can say that the scholarship on Ind contributions to these fields is growing slowly but steadily. for instance, the contribution of hindus from all over india (kerala - kerala school of maths to kashmir - e.g., Vaṭeśvara) to trigonometry, algebra, differential calculus is coming to the forefront

 

Unfortunately, nothing is static. The other side is getting even more vicious and aggressive.   We are playing the catch-up game and the gap is actually growing...

 

And where is the dharmic viewpoint of the left, other religions, USA etc? It's absolutely nothing, zero materials and books. It's not just about correcting history, but also understanding the other side with our own terms.

[BacktoCricaddict]

@Vijy @Lone Wolf @coffee_rules

 

You all bring up great points about the flawed lenses through which history is seen.  My point - illustrated by the cartoon that I have shared in this thread and multiple threads before this one - is simply this: the flawed lenses are due to our tribal affiliations, wherein we tend to see the good in our people and the bad in "theirs."

 

For this reason, Westerners see Alexander as "great" and Genghis Khan as a savage plunderer.  Mongols probably see the opposite.   Uzbeks probably see Timur as "great."  Indians see the Chola conquerors as "great" and Ghazni Mohd as a savage plunderer.  Sinhalese people see the same Chola conquerors as savage plunderers but would likely see one of their monarchs as "great" had they crossed the strait and plundered TN.  The common thread?  Tribal affiliations.

 

While history can likely never be objective, I feel we must strive to get rid of the flawed tribal viewpoints and simply acknowledge that all these conquerors were highly intelligent, strategic, ambitious, charismatic, vicious savage plunderers.  They all plundered to the extent that they could before running out of steam; some had more steam than others.  

 

I hope that - while we are correcting history - we bring to light that Ghazni Mohd was not some compassionate guy and also that neither were the Cholas.  That Tipu massacred Iyengars, CDR Wodeyar massacred Lingayats.  And so on ...

 

 

Edited June 23, 2022 by BacktoCricaddict

[coffee_rules]

1 hour ago, someone said:

Its a long road ahead. Today, the dharmic side has many activism yet little scholarship. And that's the big difference with the left side which has loads of both activism and scholarship. 

 

We make a lot of noise on social media, events, platforms, but that always has a short life span. Whereas scholarships is about deep research and is ever lasting. Where are our scholars, our deep commitment for research and our own thesis, materials, and books? That is not just about the government. Correcting history or addressing the Hinduphobia is still the material number game, and we don't even have the proper scholars team yet.

 

The non-book centric religion or rather oral based tradition could be one reason, as we don't focus extensively on written materials. Our temples, gurus themselves also traditionally lack the foresight to build their own materials , translations and reaching out to the wider audience...

 

 

There is a whole ocean of scholarly work on Indic history in the last 25 years, if one wants to look beyond western academia based Indology. BHU has great courses that even westerns come down to take advantage. There are many such universities established by Ramakrishna mutt. A lot of books published by Gita press, Samskruta Bharati are forefront in this field. There s a Hindu university of America that issues degrees on Indology. I am hopeful for the future .

https://www.hua.edu/academics/areas-of-study/sanskrit-studies/

[Vijy]

36 minutes ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

@Vijy @Lone Wolf @coffee_rules

 

You all bring up great points about the flawed lenses through which history is seen.  My point - illustrated by the cartoon that I have shared in this thread and multiple threads before this one - is simply this: the flawed lenses are due to our tribal affiliations, wherein we tend to see the good in our people and the bad in "theirs."

 

For this reason, Westerners see Alexander as "great" and Genghis Khan as a savage plunderer.  Mongols probably see the opposite.   Uzbeks probably see Timur as "great."  Indians see the Chola conquerors as "great" and Ghazni Mohd as a savage plunderer.  Sinhalese people see the same Chola conquerors as savage plunderers but would likely see one of their monarchs as "great" had they crossed the strait and plundered TN.  The common thread?  Tribal affiliations.

 

While history can likely never be objective, I feel we must strive to get rid of the flawed tribal viewpoints and simply acknowledge that all these conquerors were highly intelligent, strategic, ambitious, charismatic, vicious savage plunderers.  They all plundered to the extent that they could before running out of steam; some had more steam than others.  

 

I hope that - while we are correcting history - we bring to light that Ghazni Mohd was not some compassionate guy and also that neither were the Cholas.  That Tipu massacred Iyengars, CDR Wodeyar massacred Lingayats.  And so on ...

 

 

certainly there is bias depending on who is writing the history. for some, vlad dracul was a villain, for others (in transylvania) a hero, and nowadays a cultural icon. with that said, there are variations between someone like cholas on the one hand and timur on the other. this is what I meant by avoiding false equivalencies since the numbers do matter. the crimes committed by cholas are very unlikely to compare against those committed by timur, nazis, and so forth.

[BacktoCricaddict]

10 minutes ago, Vijy said:

certainly there is bias depending on who is writing the history. for some, vlad dracul was a villain, for others (in transylvania) a hero, and nowadays a cultural icon. with that said, there are variations between someone like cholas on the one hand and timur on the other. this is what I meant by avoiding false equivalencies since the numbers do matter. the crimes committed by cholas are very unlikely to compare against those committed by timur, nazis, and so forth.

 

Unfortunately, the same numbers comparisons can be used to treat Alexander (1 million killer) as a more benign force than Genghis (10s of million killer).  And that would simply not be true.

 

I have tremendous respect for you, and we must agree to disagree here.  I think the kill-numbers are more a reflection of their limitation than their intent.  In other words, if 10 million people had to be murdered in SL to take full power and if RRC was capable of doing it, he would probably have done it. 

 

 

Edited June 23, 2022 by BacktoCricaddict

[coffee_rules]

6 minutes ago, Vijy said:

certainly there is bias depending on who is writing the history. for some, vlad dracul was a villain, for others (in transylvania) a hero, and nowadays a cultural icon. with that said, there are variations between someone like cholas on the one hand and timur on the other. this is what I meant by avoiding false equivalencies since the numbers do matter. the crimes committed by cholas are very unlikely to compare against those committed by timur, nazis, and so forth.

Not to demean guru @BacktoCricaddict, but this is exactly how colonialists defended their expansion in India. Aryan Invasion was manufactured to show even some Hindus are outsiders. If we keep going back in History, humans came from Africa, so anything goes. In the end, it is about excesses that are recorded in historical literature that can be verified in parallel across the two sides. In case of Ghenghis Khan, Ghori , Ghazni, Moghuls, there have been parallel accounts in Persian, Turkic literature that can be peer verified in Indic ones. There has to be some science in humanities studies too. Otherwise they all are mere opinions 

[Vijy]

3 minutes ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

 

Unfortunately, the same numbers comparisons can be used to treat Alexander (1 million killer) as a more benign force than Genghis (10s of million killer).

 

I have tremendous respect for you, and we must agree to disagree here.  I think the kill-numbers are more a reflection of their limitation than their intent.  In other words, if 10 million people had to be murdered in SL to take full power and if RRC was capable of doing it, he would probably have done it. 

 

 

in some cases, the highlighted part is certainly true. but in others, it is not - some regimes do exhibit a higher level of brutality than others, and this is not due to access to more resources or having fewer limitations. the nazis, the soviets, and pol pot to name a few caused much more direct deaths than more technologically advanced regimes elsewhere in the west.

 

I am fine with agreeing to disagree since we see eye to eye on most points :)

Edited June 23, 2022 by Vijy

[someone]

del

Edited June 23, 2022 by someone

[Lone Wolf]

13 hours ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

@Vijy @Lone Wolf @coffee_rules

 

You all bring up great points about the flawed lenses through which history is seen.  My point - illustrated by the cartoon that I have shared in this thread and multiple threads before this one - is simply this: the flawed lenses are due to our tribal affiliations, wherein we tend to see the good in our people and the bad in "theirs."

 

For this reason, Westerners see Alexander as "great" and Genghis Khan as a savage plunderer.  Mongols probably see the opposite.   Uzbeks probably see Timur as "great."  Indians see the Chola conquerors as "great" and Ghazni Mohd as a savage plunderer.  Sinhalese people see the same Chola conquerors as savage plunderers but would likely see one of their monarchs as "great" had they crossed the strait and plundered TN.  The common thread?  Tribal affiliations.

 

While history can likely never be objective, I feel we must strive to get rid of the flawed tribal viewpoints and simply acknowledge that all these conquerors were highly intelligent, strategic, ambitious, charismatic, vicious savage plunderers.  They all plundered to the extent that they could before running out of steam; some had more steam than others.  

 

I hope that - while we are correcting history - we bring to light that Ghazni Mohd was not some compassionate guy and also that neither were the Cholas.  That Tipu massacred Iyengars, CDR Wodeyar massacred Lingayats.  And so on ...

 

 

I agree with your most points. 

Genghis was the inventor of Biological warfare.  He was no doubt a tactical genius of sorts & one of the ATG Military minds. 

Same goes with Alexander.  His siege warfare tactics were ahead of its times. 

Ghori's general Qutub ud din was a piece of work as well & his background & everything is inspirational.  How he set up Ghori's empire in a hostile India is a case study in itself.  I am all for acknowledging the genius of these guys or the Chola ruler who probably did the same in Lanka even though Sinhalese people later on rebelled & kicked them out.  I believe it may be a golden chapter in Sinhala history in SL textbooks.  They perhaps have their own heroes. 

 

History is often objective in nature.  There's always gonna be a good & bad side to everything.  Everyone will show how glorious its own is.  Uzbeks Mongols Greeks are thoroughly justified if they praise Timur Genghis & Alexander as their national heroes. 

[BacktoCricaddict]

5 hours ago, Lone Wolf said:

Everyone will show how glorious its own is.

I guess this is what disturbs me.  While showing how "glorious" one's "own" is, why not also acknowledge the atrocities they committed on others?  After all, those others are/were humans too, just as "we" and "our own" are.

Edited June 24, 2022 by BacktoCricaddict

[BacktoCricaddict]

18 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

Not to demean guru @BacktoCricaddict, but this is exactly how colonialists defended their expansion in India. Aryan Invasion was manufactured to show even some Hindus are outsiders. If we keep going back in History, humans came from Africa, so anything goes. In the end, it is about excesses that are recorded in historical literature that can be verified in parallel across the two sides. In case of Ghenghis Khan, Ghori , Ghazni, Moghuls, there have been parallel accounts in Persian, Turkic literature that can be peer verified in Indic ones. There has to be some science in humanities studies too. Otherwise they all are mere opinions 

Can't agree with the bold-faced part.  If anything, the opposite type of thinking leads to colonialist attitudes. 

 

In my way of thinking, all humanity is the same and everyone (whether they originated in my part of the world and followed my birth-religion or are from another part of the world and followed a different religion), must be judged in the same way for the same acts.  In other words, if we condemn Tipu the Muslim for killing 100s of Iyengars, we equally condemn Chikkadevaraja Wodeyar the Hindu for killing 100s of Lingayat priests. Both heinous acts worthy of condemnation.

 

Colonialists, on the other hand, see themselves as morally or intellectually superior to the "savage others," and then use this alleged "superiority" as an excuse to justify subjugating those others.  And then, when the tables are turned even slightly, they bitch and moan and act like they are the victims.    

Edited June 24, 2022 by BacktoCricaddict

[coffee_rules]

2 hours ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

Can't agree with the bold-faced part.  If anything, the opposite type of thinking leads to colonialist attitudes. 
 

Your logic is like how If we call out Islamic invaders’ iconoclasm, the argument is that all kings of that era were violent and Hindu kings would also attack other kingdoms and destroy temples!! Classic whataboutry from the left / universal humanism consortium!! Also, colonialists would argue that they are not alone to invade India, look at Aryans who rode on horses and killed all indigenous people and imposed their language as well. That is the point I was making. 

 

 

2 hours ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

 

In my way of thinking, all humanity is the same and everyone (whether they originated in my part of the world and followed my birth-religion or are from another part of the world and followed a different religion), must be judged in the same way for the same acts.  In other words, if we condemn Tipu the Muslim for killing 100s of Iyengars, we equally condemn Chikkadevaraja Wodeyar the Hindu for killing 100s of Lingayat priests. Both heinous acts worthy of condemnation.

 

No, you have to have the facts here too. Tipu did it for the glory of religion. Wodeyar killed jungamas as they were allegedly conspiring to overthrow him and he wanted to set an example to fix the rebellion. Both are different, lesser charge of inhuman act in the case of the latter. Kings would destroy temples, steal the idols and construct a grand temple for the same deity in their kingdom. They seldom looted temples and broke idols in the name of their god. All crimes in History are not one and the same. 

2 hours ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

Colonialists, on the other hand, see themselves as morally or intellectually superior to the "savage others," and then use this alleged "superiority" as an excuse to justify subjugating those others.  And then, when the tables are turned even slightly, they bitch and moan and act like they are the victims.    

 

[BacktoCricaddict]

12 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

Your logic is like how If we call out Islamic invaders’ iconoclasm, the argument is that all kings of that era were violent and Hindu kings would also attack other kingdoms and destroy temples!! Classic whataboutry from the left / universal humanism consortium!! Also, colonialists would argue that they are not alone to invade India, look at Aryans who rode on horses and killed all indigenous people and imposed their language as well. That is the point I was making. 

 

 

No, you have to have the facts here too. Tipu did it for the glory of religion. Wodeyar killed jungamas as they were allegedly conspiring to overthrow him and he wanted to set an example to fix the rebellion. Both are different, lesser charge of inhuman act in the case of the latter. Kings would destroy temples, steal the idols and construct a grand temple for the same deity in their kingdom. They seldom looted temples and broke idols in the name of their god. All crimes in History are not one and the same. 

 

 

So, in your mind, committing the same heinous act must be judged differently when the motive is religion vs something else.  This is something I cannot fathom. We may just have to leave it there .... until the next time such a thread comes up :-).

 

And it is not whataboutry - just an acknowledgment of facts that - for various reasons, none better than the other - "glorious" kings of various ilks committed savage acts of plunder. 

[BacktoCricaddict]

57 minutes ago, MultiB48 said:

And what's the big deal about being human? Is it any better than being a parochial Hindu

Nope. It's just me.

 

58 minutes ago, MultiB48 said:

why not finally be a good person and kill yourself and ease the burden on the planet

I don't know man ... who will remain then to raise your BP?

[coffee_rules]

13 minutes ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

 

So, in your mind, committing the same heinous act must be judged differently when the motive is religion vs something else.  This is something I cannot fathom. We may just have to leave it there .... until the next time such a thread comes up :-).

 

And it is not whataboutry - just an acknowledgment of facts that - for various reasons, none better than the other - "glorious" kings of various ilks committed savage acts of plunder. 

The Hindu kings would rarely attack common people and impose their way of life, culture, religion on common people unlike Islamic rulers. There was a Raja Dharma that they would adhere to. Chalukyas ruled from Badami till the Narmada rivers, never heard any imposition of their language, in fact languages flourished despite being in same large kingdom. That was the Hindu plurality. What wodeyar did was definitely against this Raja Dharma, I am sure there will be enough criticism for him. But he is a outlier for 1000s of kings compared most Islamic rulers would involve in conversions, jiziya and iconoclasm. 

[BacktoCricaddict]

2 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

The Hindu kings would rarely attack common people and impose their way of life, culture, religion on common people unlike Islamic rulers. There was a Raja Dharma that they would adhere to. Chalukyas ruled from Badami till the Narmada rivers, never heard any imposition of their language, in fact languages flourished despite being in same large kingdom. That was the Hindu plurality. What wodeyar did was definitely against this Raja Dharma, I am sure there will be enough criticism for him. But he is a outlier for 1000s of kings compared most Islamic rulers would involve in conversions, jiziya and iconoclasm. 

I think a major difference in our thinking comes from a single premise - you look at the collective of "Islamic" rulers vs the collective of "Hindu" rulers.  For me, it is simply King A's actions vs. King B's. 

 

 

 

 

[coffee_rules]

1 hour ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

I think a major difference in our thinking comes from a single premise - you look at the collective of "Islamic" rulers vs the collective of "Hindu" rulers.  For me, it is simply King A's actions vs. King B's. 

 

 

 

 

Historians don’t call Tipu a tyrant for no reason. Based on his actions CWodeyar would be called a bad king, calling them equally bad is false equivalence, which I think you will not get.

 

Even if they call Wodeyars tyrants , nobody will be in the streets protesting. But for Tipu/Aurangzeb , even moderates, liberals along with Islamists will cry hoarse.

Edited June 24, 2022 by coffee_rules