Indian History - The Facts by Ashish Joshi

War is between rulers, not religions ********************************** 1. Tipu Sultan vs The Marathas During Maratha-Mysore conflict of the 1700s, the British had recruited the Maratha army to take on Tipu Sultan. After the ‘Hindu’ Maratha army ransacked the Sringeri monastery in Mysore, Tipu Sultan offered his resources for the consecration of the Goddess. He also sent along his token gifts for the idol. A Hindu army destroyed a temple, and a Muslim ruler sent money and resources to rebuild it. So it was not a war between two religions but between two rulers for power. 2. Shivaji vs Afzal Khan While Chhatrapati Shivaji has been glorified as a great ‘Hindu’ leader, few speak about how he was mindful and respectful of other faiths. When he sent his army to plunder the treasures of erstwhile Surat, he had asked them to follow a few simple orders. That they would not allow any harm to be inflicted upon the Hajrat Baba ki Masjid, or Father Andros Pinto’s Ashram – he aske...

Nehru & Patel : The divide that never was. **************************************** There is a need to clear the air regarding Nehru's relationship with Patel, his lifelong friend and guide. Nehru and Patel shared a close bond that overrode the differences. Nehru and Patel often disagreed, and furiously so. But such was the beauty of the relationship that they rarely kept a secret from each other. They wrote to each other almost every other day, expressing their doubts and differences honestly and openly, and concluding in the end that their mutual affection and regard outweighed any difference they felt with regard to state policy. In their letters, the two great men agonised over the rumours surrounding their relationship and the constant attempts to create a divide between them. A tribute The regard and affection Patel felt for Nehru are best captured in the tribute he paid Nehru on the latter’s 60th birthday which fell on November 14, 1949. This forms part ...

Mughals didn't loot India. They made India rich ***************************************** India gained independence in 1947 after a long freedom struggle with British imperialism. Perhaps because of that, lack of historical knowledge and sense we see all conquests as colonisation. Colonisation is described by professor Harbans Mukhia as "governance of a land and its people, now on behalf of and primarily for the economic benefits of a community of people inhabiting a far-off land". The Mughals came to India as conquerors but remained as Indians not colonists. They subsumed their identity as well as the group's identity with India and became inseparable from it, says professor Mukhia, giving rise to an enduring culture and history. In fact, Mukhia goes on to say that this issue of Mughals being foreign was never a discussion point till quite recently, so well had they integrated and assimilated into the country they had made their own. There was no reason ...

Tipu Sultan was not a Religious Bigot ******************************************** { Also on my page in Facebook dated 25th February, 2018 - link https://www.facebook.com/Indianhistory.ashishjoshi/photos/a.1779668245674012.1073741828.1779518305689006/1782457815395055/?type=3&theater  }  Colonial historians have projected Tipu as a “religious bigot”, who was instrumental in killing and converting to Islam thousands of Nayars of Kerala, Catholics of Dakshina Kannada and Coorgis of Kodagu. Even Kannada chauvinists have projected him as anti-Kannadiga as he was instrumental in changing the local names of places and introducing Persian vocabulary into administration. Marxist historians, on the other hand, have viewed him as “one of the foremost commanders of independence struggle” and a “harbinger of new productive forces”. The demonisation of Tipu Sultan dates back to the works of two contemporary chroniclers of the history of Mysore - Colonel Mark Wilks and...

Nehru-Ambedkar : The collaboration that seeded  India ||  Ambedkar & RSS : A frosty relationship . ********** A narrative has been  built in recent times that Ambedkar did not get  his due . And three points are put forward as under : (1) Ambedkar was unable to make it to the Constituent Assembly and someone had to withdraw for him to become a member; (2) it was Mahatma Gandhi who made Nehru inducted Ambedkar into his interim cabinet; (3) the Congress ensured Ambedkar’s defeat in the 1952 General Election as there was no love lost between the party and the Dalit leader. But what are the facts One must understand how Constituent assembly  was constituted. As a consequence of the Cabinet Mission’s ill-fated attempt to broker a deal between the Congress and Muslim League, elections were held in July 1946 to the provincial legislatures of British India. These legislatures then elected 296 members to the Constituent Assembly (allocated roughly in the ratio...