Half baked truths on 1857

“A CENTURY AND HALF LATER- – -” LETTER TO INDIAN EXPRESS

DEAR SIR,

This has reference to the Article “1857,a year of communal unity”,(TNIE- 04 May).

The writer states:

 “They asked Bahadur Shah II to take over the leadership of the revolt.- – – though initially reluctant soon agreed to be the symbolic leader of the revolt”.

The renowned historian,Dr.R.C. Majumdar,in his magnum opus trilogy- ‘History of the Freedom Movement in India-Vol-1’ wrote:

“Although the assumption of leadership by Bahadur Shah gave the mutiny of sepoys in Delhi a general character of popular revolt,it was nothing of the kind.The turbulence of the sepoys knew no bounds.They paid scant respect to Bahadur Shah and not unoften humiliated and insulted him.So Bahdur Shah carried on secret negotiations with the British.These statements are quite at variance with the popular conception of the outbreak of 1857,but rest upon unimpeachable testimony”.

Dr. Majumdar certainly did not belong to the ideology of this nation’s ‘EMINENT HISTORIANS’! Thus he ought to be speaking the ‘TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH’!!

The writer of the Article then goes to state:

“Perhaps the most important feature of the great revolt which is relevant for us today was its naturally non-communal character”.

Typical “secular balderdash’ from the ‘Eminent Historians’, that we people have got used to!!

Dr.Majumdar,in the same qouted book wrote:

“Sir Syed Ahmed indirectly admitted the fact when he said: “The Muslims were in every respect more dissatisfied than the Hindus and hence in most districts they were comparitively more rebellious”.Again,a proclamation issued by Khan Bahadur Khan of Bareilly: “If the Hindus shall exert themselves in the murder of these infidels and expel them from the country,they shall be rewarded for their patriotism by the extinction of the practice of the slaughter of the Kind. If any Hindu shall shrink from joining in this cause, the evils of the revival of this practice shall recoil upon them”.

Communal amity,milk and honey,is it Sir?

Lastly,the writer states:

“What needs to be understood is that Indian society had not yet been communalised by the British policy of divide and rule as it was from the last quarter of the 19th century”.

Really!!  In the book,‘Alberuni’s India‘ one comes across the following statement of Alberuni:

“His son Yamin-addaula Mahmud (Ghaznavi) marched into India  during a period of thirty years and more.God be merciful to both father and son!Mahmud utterly ruined the prosperity of the country,and performed wonderful exploits,by which Hindus became like atoms of dust scattered in all directions- – Their scattered remains cherish,of course,THE MOST INVETERATE AVERSION OF ALL THE MUSLIMS”

British divide and rule?!!

I’m reminded of your edit,a few days ago-‘Who writes our story”
-(TNIE-30 Apr).Elementary ‘Dear Watson’,so would quip,Sherlock HOLMES!! ‘-THE EMINENT HISTORIANS’ stupid!!

Any wonder then Indian history stands ‘raped’? In an article published by the Observer Research Foundation,  Dr Yvette Rosser (University of Austin, Texas, US), who has extensively researched history textbooks in Pakistan, Bangladesh and India discovered that in India, the old Marxist-influenced NCERT textbooks mirrored the Pakistani pattern of glorifying Islamic invaders (“Medieval India Revisited and Revised: Reviled or Rectified?”).

Any further proof needed Sir? It appears the writer of the quoted Article, belongs to THAT SCHOOL of ‘EMINENCES’!!

VANDE MATARAM

Responses