Spot Where Tipu Attained Martyrdom (Courtesy Google Image)
Dr. Mazhar Naqvi
The
opposition of 216th birth anniversary celebrations of Tipu
Sultan is yet another attempt of the disruptive forces to enhance religious
intolerance in India. Certain right wing organizations are opposing the
celebration on the ground that Tipu was a tyrant, destroyer of temples, a ruler
who killed Brahmins and forced non-Muslims to embrace Islam. Christians too
have joined these outfits and dubbed the decision of Karnataka government to
celebrate ‘Tipu Jayanti’ on November 10 intolerable. They are averse
to the celebration on the plea that Tipu had held more than 80,000 Christians as
captives during his tenure.
The
unfortunate row over Tipu who is revered as martyr all over India needs to be
analyzed against the backdrop of the words of famous historian Richard Eaton. He
had suggested “extreme caution needs to be exercised in accepting the claims
of medieval historians as well as in interpreting past events in terms of
today’s categories. Failure to do this has resulted in the construction of the
image of all Muslims as allegedly fired by an irrepressible hatred of Hindus, a
gross distortion of actual history.”This is what exactly happening now. Those
branding Tipu as a tyrant and temple breaker have no idea about how the British
historians used history to divide Hindus and Muslims to sustain their rule over
India. They used Persian chronicles by
Muslim historians attached to the courts to achieve their task. As Persian chroniclers
were paid by Muslim rulers of various states, they used all possible
imagination and exaggeration to present their patrons as great champions of Islamic
orthodoxy whereas in fact they were Muslims in namesake and all their deeds
were not in accordance with Islamic laws. Their description however gave the
colonial historians an opportunity to project all Muslim leaders as oppressive and
anti-Hindu or Christian. They carefully selected those reports from Persian
chronicles that glorified their patrons as temple or idol breakers. They did so
for achieving two objectives. First-To project British rule as enlightened and
civilized to garner support of the majority community. Second-To Present
chronicle descriptions as an evidence to establish the fact the Hindus and
Muslims could not exist peacefully.
The colonial rule patronized
construction of an image as if all Muslim rulers were tyrants. It is true that
some of them indeed resorted to oppressive measures against their non-Muslim subjects.
But they should have been portrayed as bad Muslims who defied Islam that
preaches peace not violence. Instead, colonial historians projected them as
representative of Islam to appease their patrons the way Muslim chroniclers did
earlier. Had it not been so, they would have also highlighted that royal temple complexes were
pre-eminently political institutions as Eaton did later. He says “ The central
icon, housed in a royal temple’s garba griha or ‘womb-chamber’ and inhabited by
the state-deity of the temple’s royal patron, expressed the ‘shared sovereignty
of king and deity’. Therefore, temple-breaking, especially those associated
with ruling houses, was essentially a political, rather than simply religious,
act. As proof of his thesis, he has cited instances of the sacking of royal
temples of Hindu rulers by rival Hindu kings as early as in 6th
century. In AD 642 CE, the Pallava King Narashimhavarman looted the image of
Ganesha from the Chalukyan capital of Vatapi. In 8th century,
Bengali troops sought revenge on king Lalitaditya by destroying what they
thought was the image of Vishnu Vaikuntha, the state deity of Lalitaditya's
kingdom in Kashmir. In the early 9th century, the Pandyan King Srimara
Srivallabha also invaded Sri Lanka and returned to his capital with a golden
Buddha image that had been installed in the kingdom's Jewel Palace. Eaton has
also given similar examples during the regime of Chola, Chalukya, Kalinga and
Pala rulers. It was this background that had prompted him to conclude that Muslim
invaders followed a pattern that had already been in existence and considered
essential for establishing the invaders as legitimate rulers. On the basis of
his analysis, He had advocated extreme caution in accepting the claims of
historians. The ongoing controversy only proves that he was correct in his assessment.
The disruptive forces are giving examples of Tipu’s tyranny but not
highlighting his pro-Hindu or Christian actions. Such forces should not be
selective. They need to assess Tipu in totality not in fragmentation. History records
that In 1791, some Maratha horsemen under Raghunath Rao Patwardhan had raided the temple and monastery of Sringeri Shankaracharuya, killing and wounding many. They
also –plundered the monastery and looted its valuables. On receipt of a petition
from the incumbent Shankaracharya for help, Tipu Sultan expressed his
indignation and grief at the news. He immediately ordered for supply of
200 rahatis (Royal decreees)
in cash and other gifts and articles to the petitioner.
B.A.
Saletare has also described Tipu as a defender of the Hindu faith, who patronized
temple at Melkote. The temple still has gold and silver vessels with
inscriptions revealing that they were offered by Sultan. Tipu also presented
four silver cups to the Lakshmikanta Temple at Kalale. It is also on record that
he donated jewellery and granted land to several temples. Tipu issued 34 sanads
(deeds) of endowment to temples in his dominions. Likewise, he had also ordered
the construction of a Church on the request of French. There is no denying of
the fact that Tipu kept in captivity Christians for a long time and even
persecuted them also. But his approach deserves to be examined politically not
religiously. He suffered defeat and lost his life as Both Nizam and Maratthas had
allied with British. History is full of rulers who showed no mercy to their opponents.
Then, why Tipu is being pointed out suddenly by people of that land for whose
freedom he laid down his life. Such tendencies need to be curbed or India may
find herself soon in a “Dharam Yudh’ (Holy War) as has been predicted by Yogi Adiyanath. India has already suffered much due to religious intolerance and there is no need to repeat the history.rather,time has come to rectify the mistakes committed in the past.The unholy attempt to brand martyr Tipu as a tyrant irked the blogger as Sher-E-Mysore was a great admirer of Maula Ali.Everyone knows that no follower of Hazrat Ali can be an oppressor. (References
available on request)
No comments:
Post a Comment