Indian history must be told from India’s perspective: Exposing Marxist rope trick - the Vikram Sampath way

Here’s a confession: I love reading ‘eminent’ historians such as Romila Thapar, Irfan Habib and Bipan Chandra. More for their ingenuity in turning history upside down. It’s like a rope trick where Mahmud of Ghazni is transformed into a secular person who should be thanked for destroying the edifice of oppression and superstition in Somnath! Alauddin Khilji is projected as a great economist who introduces a series of reforms. And the Mughals are showcased as the repository of the Ganga-Jamuni tehzeeb. But, of late, nothing entertains me more than the trickery of ‘historian’ Audrey Truschke. She has ventured where even the Marxist historians of eminence dare not to tread. So, Truschke thinks Aurangzeb was secular just because he employed many Hindus in his bureaucracy. Even more than Akbar, the Great. It didn’t bother her that Aurangzeb had destroyed so many temples, including the sacred temples of Banaras and Mathura. So jaundiced is her worldview that she could not comprehend the possibility of Aurangzeb employing the likes of Jai Singh and Jashwant Singh just because he wanted Hindus to fight against formidable Hindu adversaries like Shivaji. And, when there was no Shivaji, he sent them to the arduous terrains such as the Afghan frontiers. It was a win-win scenario for Aurangzeb. If a Hindu general won the battle, the Mughals became more powerful. If he lost, and the world was one kafir less! Vikram Sampath’s new book [caption id=“attachment_11580201” align=“alignnone” width=“786”] Cover page of Vikram Sampath’s new book: Bravehearts of Bharat. Image courtesy: amazon.com[/caption] In this vastly distorted worldview enters a new book by Vikram Sampath, Bharat’s Bravehearts (Penguin, Rs 799), which promises to turn Indian history, as we have known so far, upside down. It’s the story of 15 bravehearts, half of them women. The story is written from their perspective, while the usual suspects such as the Sultanate and Mughal rulers make guest appearances. “True, in this book, the Sultanate and Mughal rulers make an appearance but as peripheral characters. We should not be too obsessed with Delhi history. We are told about regional histories. This is the case even in NCERT textbooks. So, what’s regional history? How can we say what was the centre? Every region is regional. And every region is central,” Sampath says as he asks: “What makes Cholas a regional kingdom at the apex of their power? We need to relook at this notion of regional and central. What this book has suggested is that if we flip this concept of regional and central, still we can tell the story of India.” According to Sampath, the book is the result of Sanjeev Sanyal’s “act of provocation”. He recalls, “Sanjeev (Sanyal) is a dear friend and we keep meeting each other. In one such meeting in Delhi in 2016, he asked me if I have ever noticed the manner in which Indian history is depicted as ‘a long litany of failures’. Every battle that we are taught about is one in which India or Indians have only lost. We come across as a nation of pathetic losers.” Sanyal’s words stayed with Sampath as he wondered if Indians put up any resistance. Or, were they just cowering before every invader who came our way? And if we did fight, then where are those heroes, their stories? From the Aryan invasion till the arrival of the British, why do we have only the laundry list of lost battles? Sampath believes there is more to India than what has been told so far. “The fact that we still exist as a civilisation, especially when many others — from Romans and Greeks to Egyptians and Sumerians — have perished long ago, is a testimony that we didn’t lose all our battles,” he says. He has a point. For, the Arabs breached the European gates within 100 years of Prophet Mohammed’s death. But in India, they could not make any significant headway even 500 years after his demise. “There were several Arab invasions even before Mohammed bin Qasim attacked Sindh in 712 AD, but they all were unsuccessful. Mohammed bin Qasim did succeed in occupying Sindh, but Indian rulers ensured they didn’t go beyond Sindh,” Sampath says as he informed how Lalitaditya Muktapida of Kashmir and Yashovarman of Kannauj joined hands to block them. Lalitaditya and Ysashovarman were rivals but they collaborated to stop the march of Islam in India. Likewise, in Central India and Deccan, one would see a confederacy of several kings such as Nagabhata of the Gurjara-Pratihara dynasty, Bappa Rawal of Mewar, Vikramaditya II of the Chalukya dynasty, et al, that came up to take on the Muslim invaders. These stories have been wilfully ignored and obliterated from the larger Hindu consciousness, in order to project them as sore losers. Bharat’s Bravehearts, initially, intended to be a “quicky”, which was quite “tempting” for Sampath, especially after the completion of the two-volume Savarkar biography. But given the “wide range of stories, geographies as well as timespan”, it was obvious the book would be anything but a “quicky”. Rediscovering real bravehearts One of the most fascinating aspects about the book was that it devoted half the space to women bravehearts. Among them, the saga of Ahilya Bai Holkar of Indore and Rajarshi Bhagyachandra Jai Singh of Manipur stands out. “They were not warriors in the sense that they didn’t take to the battlefield to prove their mettle; but they were, for me, civilisational warriors,” Sampath explains. On Ahilya Bai Holkar, he said, “Ahilya Bai’s is a fascinating story where her father-in-law grooms her to be a ruler and an administrator. Her rule was the golden period for Indore. Ahilya Bai not just administered her kingdom efficiently, but also became the torchbearer of Hindu culture and civilisation by patronising indigenous art and craft, but also renovating Hindu temples across the country — from 12 Jyotirlingas to seven Puris, and 4 dhams. She united civilisational India through the soft power of religion.” There’s also a chapter on Rajaraja and Rajendra Chola, who are the flavours of the season thanks to Mani Ratnam’s latest film, Ponniyin Selvan 1. Sampath explains how Rajaraja extended his empire to Maldives and Sri Lanka, while Rajendra went, in the north, up the Indo-Gangetic plains, and in 1025 CE attacked Srivijaya in Southeast Asia. “The Cholas didn’t colonise these regions. For them, culturally influencing someone was more important than having a colony.” But then, were the Cholas Hindus? Tamil actor Kamal Haasan recently stoked a controversy by saying that the Cholas weren’t Hindus. Sampath, however, believes that there is more to the issue than just this question. “Even as the Chola issue is yet to die down, there has been a controversy surrounding the Kannada film Kantara, wherein some vested elements have said that ‘Bhoota Kola’ was not a part of Hindu culture. Not long ago, we were told Onam was not Hindu; yoga was not Hindu; Ayurveda was not Hindu.” [caption id=“attachment_11580361” align=“alignnone” width=“619”] Vikram Sampath. Image courtesy: wikibio.in[/caption] Dismantling Hinduism project According to Sampath, one needs to look at last year’s ‘Dismantling Global Hindutva’ conference in the US, to understand the real intent behind all this. “Initially, the narrative was that Hinduism was different from Hindutva. It said that Hindutva was an extremist ideology on the lines of the violent ideologies of the West, while Hinduism was a tolerant religion. They argued that Hinduism had to be saved and salvaged from Hindutva! But by the end of the three-day conference, it was obvious that Hinduism itself was the target. The Chola or the Kantara controversy needs to be examined in this perspective.” The Sanatan Dharma has several streams of ideas and rituals together and simultaneously; the Vedic ritual is the core, while others such as tantric, animism or even atheism (like Charvaka) are part of the broader Sanatan fold. “The toolkit is simple: If you want to destroy the Hindu omnibus, divide it into several parts, and take them down one after another. Meanwhile, keep attacking the core Vedic stream. Since Brahmins are the repository of Vedic rituals, they are constantly under attack. Once this core is destroyed, the larger Hindu omnibus would scatter like atoms.” Sampath’s book tells the story of 15 bravehearts, including Lalitaditya Muktapida, who would beat Alexander with his military exploits. But we hardly know about him and others. How did we forget them? Sampath believes we have been forced to forget historical figures like Lalitaditya. “The fact that these people remained alive in our folktales proves that we didn’t forget them. We in fact kept them alive despite all the challenges. Even in the medieval times, the people of Kashmir would organise a big festival to celebrate Lalitaditya’s victory over Tibetans. So, we Indians didn’t forget our history, we were made to forget. The blame primarily lies with our eminent historians, who have selectively chosen the script on what to tell and what to keep hidden in the closet.” Utpal Kumar is Opinion Editor, Firstpost and News18. He tweets from @Utpal_Kumar1. Views expressed are personal. Read all the Latest News , Trending News ,  Cricket News , Bollywood News , India News and Entertainment News here. Follow us on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.