https://www.facebook.com/vallury.sarma/posts/553481094689308
The Hindu – OPINION - July 23, 2013 - What Hindus can & should be proud of - RAMACHANDRA GUHA (Part 2)
4. Victory in DhakaGuha writes
Should Hindus be proud of the Indian Army’s victory in Dhaka in 1971? Perhaps as Indians, but not specifically as Hindus. The war had its basis in the savage repression of Bengalis in East Pakistan by the West Pakistan Army. The refugees who came to India were both Hindus and Muslims. The help rendered to them by the Government of India did not discriminate according to their faith. As for the Indian military campaign, the chief commander in the field was a Jew, his immediate superior a Sikh. A Parsi served as Chief of Army Staff. His own superior, the Prime Minister of India, had notoriously been disallowed from entering the Jagannath temple in Puri because she had not married a Hindu. To be sure, many soldiers and officers in the Indian Army were of Hindu origin. Yet they never saw themselves in narrowly communal terms. In our armed forces, then and now, Hindu and Muslim, Christian and Sikh, Parsi and Jew, lived, laboured and struggled together.
Comment
Guha’s knowledge of Indian history probably starts with Mahatma Gandhi and ends with Rahul Gandhi. Everyone knows that the Indian Army’s victory has nothing to do with Hinduism or Hindutva politics. Why should Indians and in particular Hindus be proud of the victory in Dhaka? Does Guha know anything about the history of Dhaka and Bangladesh which emerged after 1971 war? Dhaka was and still is a Hindu punya-kshetra (Centre of pilgrimage). Just as the name Kolkata was derived from Kali-kheto, the field of MotherKali, Dhaka’s name is derived from Dhakeswari, another name for the Mother Durga. The present temple of Dhakeswari was probably built in 11 century by ruler Ballal Sen of Sena dynasty which ruled Bengal. Now Dhaka may be known as the city of mosques, but the temple was built much before any mosque came up in Bengal. Even now it is called the national temple of Bangladesh, the centre of worship for the 9 per cent Hindu population still surviving in that country. It is a Shakti-sthan like Visalakshi temple in Kasi. Muslim rule in Bengal started in the Mughal times in 16th century and by the beginning of 20th century over half the population of East Bengal became Muslims. In 1905 Bengal was divided into West and East Bengal, to create a Muslim majority state out of the Hindu Majority undivided Bengal. This was the starting point of Independence movement in Bengal and the provided the background for the national song Vande Mataram. Following popular agitations, division of Bengal ended in few years. Again in 1947 Bengal was divided and the Muslim Bengal became East-Pakistan with 25 per cent Hindus opting to stay in their ancestral land. 1971 was the first time when Islamic army was subdued in 6 centuries by a Hindu majority army. . This is the feeling of the Hindu Bhadralok friend of Guha, which Guha failed to understand. All Hindus should feel for the holy shrines lost even in 20th century because of partition.
Does Mr. Guha know that it was not Bengalees as he claims were targeted by the Pakistan army? It was primarily aimed at Hindu-Bengalees. That is why their focus was on Dhaka University with a large Hindu presence, a fact confirmed by my friends from Bangla. This is what prompted Taslima Nasreen to write “Lajja”.
5. Hindu in intent and content
While talking about Dhaka and Bangladesh war, Guha mischievously brings in the Ayodhya issue making his column nothing more than a gossip column in his assumed new role of a Hindu reformer.
Unlike the military campaign in East Pakistan in 1971, the campaign to build a temple in Ayodha was unquestionably Hindu in intent and content. No Muslims or Sikhs or Parsis or Jews or Christians participated in it. But should Hindus have been proud of it? I rather think not. In a society where so many are without access to adequate education, health care and housing, where malnutrition is rife and where safety and environmental standards are violated every minute, to invest so much political energy and human capital in the demolition of a mosque and its replacement with a brand-new temple seemed wildly foolish, if not downright Machiavellian. As it turned out, the Ram Janmabhoomi campaign led to two decades of strife across northern and western India, with thousands of people losing their lives and hundreds of thousands their homes and livelihoods.
Comment - This is again a Himalayan blunder by the self-styled historian. The bringing down of the dilapidated and abandoned mosque structure was not done by the secular government. It was, of course done by a section of Hindus. But why should Hindus be ashamed about it? In the previous 1000 year history of India thousands of famous and magnificent temples starting from the Somanath temple have been destroyed by invading Turks, Mongols and Arabs in the name of their iconoclastic religion. This was a single symbolic effort done by a group done by srama-dan in public in front of TV cameras and political leaders and the media persons. As Nobel laureate V. S. Naipaul observes, the act was a historic necessity.
Ram Guha does not find a church coming up at every kilometre or big mosques coming up with foreign funds channelled through NGOs objectionable, but calls building a Ram temple in his birth place Ayodhya which is one of the seven holiest cities (moksha-puri) of the Hindus, foolish. His reference to strife in Northern India tracing the root cause to this only shows his own foolishness. Even demand for Telangana and the ad hoc decision of the congress party imposed by its leader can cause such a strife in India. Terrorism and Naxalism are the main causes for violence in India.
The Hindu – OPINION - July 23, 2013 - What Hindus can & should be proud of - RAMACHANDRA GUHA (Part 2)
4. Victory in DhakaGuha writes
Should Hindus be proud of the Indian Army’s victory in Dhaka in 1971? Perhaps as Indians, but not specifically as Hindus. The war had its basis in the savage repression of Bengalis in East Pakistan by the West Pakistan Army. The refugees who came to India were both Hindus and Muslims. The help rendered to them by the Government of India did not discriminate according to their faith. As for the Indian military campaign, the chief commander in the field was a Jew, his immediate superior a Sikh. A Parsi served as Chief of Army Staff. His own superior, the Prime Minister of India, had notoriously been disallowed from entering the Jagannath temple in Puri because she had not married a Hindu. To be sure, many soldiers and officers in the Indian Army were of Hindu origin. Yet they never saw themselves in narrowly communal terms. In our armed forces, then and now, Hindu and Muslim, Christian and Sikh, Parsi and Jew, lived, laboured and struggled together.
Comment
Guha’s knowledge of Indian history probably starts with Mahatma Gandhi and ends with Rahul Gandhi. Everyone knows that the Indian Army’s victory has nothing to do with Hinduism or Hindutva politics. Why should Indians and in particular Hindus be proud of the victory in Dhaka? Does Guha know anything about the history of Dhaka and Bangladesh which emerged after 1971 war? Dhaka was and still is a Hindu punya-kshetra (Centre of pilgrimage). Just as the name Kolkata was derived from Kali-kheto, the field of MotherKali, Dhaka’s name is derived from Dhakeswari, another name for the Mother Durga. The present temple of Dhakeswari was probably built in 11 century by ruler Ballal Sen of Sena dynasty which ruled Bengal. Now Dhaka may be known as the city of mosques, but the temple was built much before any mosque came up in Bengal. Even now it is called the national temple of Bangladesh, the centre of worship for the 9 per cent Hindu population still surviving in that country. It is a Shakti-sthan like Visalakshi temple in Kasi. Muslim rule in Bengal started in the Mughal times in 16th century and by the beginning of 20th century over half the population of East Bengal became Muslims. In 1905 Bengal was divided into West and East Bengal, to create a Muslim majority state out of the Hindu Majority undivided Bengal. This was the starting point of Independence movement in Bengal and the provided the background for the national song Vande Mataram. Following popular agitations, division of Bengal ended in few years. Again in 1947 Bengal was divided and the Muslim Bengal became East-Pakistan with 25 per cent Hindus opting to stay in their ancestral land. 1971 was the first time when Islamic army was subdued in 6 centuries by a Hindu majority army. . This is the feeling of the Hindu Bhadralok friend of Guha, which Guha failed to understand. All Hindus should feel for the holy shrines lost even in 20th century because of partition.
Does Mr. Guha know that it was not Bengalees as he claims were targeted by the Pakistan army? It was primarily aimed at Hindu-Bengalees. That is why their focus was on Dhaka University with a large Hindu presence, a fact confirmed by my friends from Bangla. This is what prompted Taslima Nasreen to write “Lajja”.
5. Hindu in intent and content
While talking about Dhaka and Bangladesh war, Guha mischievously brings in the Ayodhya issue making his column nothing more than a gossip column in his assumed new role of a Hindu reformer.
Unlike the military campaign in East Pakistan in 1971, the campaign to build a temple in Ayodha was unquestionably Hindu in intent and content. No Muslims or Sikhs or Parsis or Jews or Christians participated in it. But should Hindus have been proud of it? I rather think not. In a society where so many are without access to adequate education, health care and housing, where malnutrition is rife and where safety and environmental standards are violated every minute, to invest so much political energy and human capital in the demolition of a mosque and its replacement with a brand-new temple seemed wildly foolish, if not downright Machiavellian. As it turned out, the Ram Janmabhoomi campaign led to two decades of strife across northern and western India, with thousands of people losing their lives and hundreds of thousands their homes and livelihoods.
Comment - This is again a Himalayan blunder by the self-styled historian. The bringing down of the dilapidated and abandoned mosque structure was not done by the secular government. It was, of course done by a section of Hindus. But why should Hindus be ashamed about it? In the previous 1000 year history of India thousands of famous and magnificent temples starting from the Somanath temple have been destroyed by invading Turks, Mongols and Arabs in the name of their iconoclastic religion. This was a single symbolic effort done by a group done by srama-dan in public in front of TV cameras and political leaders and the media persons. As Nobel laureate V. S. Naipaul observes, the act was a historic necessity.
Ram Guha does not find a church coming up at every kilometre or big mosques coming up with foreign funds channelled through NGOs objectionable, but calls building a Ram temple in his birth place Ayodhya which is one of the seven holiest cities (moksha-puri) of the Hindus, foolish. His reference to strife in Northern India tracing the root cause to this only shows his own foolishness. Even demand for Telangana and the ad hoc decision of the congress party imposed by its leader can cause such a strife in India. Terrorism and Naxalism are the main causes for violence in India.
జాజి శర్మ Shri Sarma garu, I congratulate you for shredding Guha's innocent looking but inflambable article, to pieces with historical facts. Guha also faults when he says Chief of Army Staff superior is The PM., when President of India is the Supreme Commander. Some how I missed part I comments, now I will read from your timeline.
No comments:
Post a Comment