"Poor Naipaul" or "Poor Ganguli"?
"Poor Naipaul" -- Amulya Ganguli so starts his tirade against Naipaul, saying " What is more, it is clear that Naipaul gleans from history only what suits his bias" and then pours his venom on Sangh Parivar. After reading "Bajrang from Blighty" (HT Dec 11, 2000), I really wonder who is "poor" and who "gleans from history what suits his bias"?
Sant Tulsidas wrote in Ramcharitmanas: "jaaki rahi bhavana jaisi, prabhu moorat dekhi tin taisi" -- roughly translated it means "one sees god in the image of his own thoughts" and it is no wonder that in Naipaul, Ganguli not used to reality sees his own image of "gleaning from history what suits his own bias".
Had "Poor Ganguli" himself been not used to "glean from history only what suits his bias" he would have endorsed Naipaul and quoted that Mahmud Ghaznavi alone led at least 14 raids into India "for the purpose of planting the standard of Islam and extirpating idolatry" and returned with so much "plunder that it is impossible to recount" and that he was declared the richest monarch ever in the history of the world. He carried so many Hindu prisoners from India that "one fifth share due to the Sayyids was 150,000 slaves", that each was sold from two to ten dirhams, that 'these' were afterwards taken to Ghazna, and merchants came from distant cities to purchase them, so that the countries of Mawarau-n nahr, Irak and Khurasan were filled with them, and the fair and the dark, the rich and the poor, were commingled in one community in one common slavery." Having seen the flow of venom poured by "Poor Ganguli", I thought the above must have been written by the "Saffron Brigade of Murli Manohar Joshi" but to my deep disappointment I found this was written by none other than Utbi -- the personal secretary of Mahmud himself.
Had "Poor Ganguli" himself been not used to "glean from history what suits his bias" he would also have quoted that Alauddin Khilji told his learned men of religion "be assured that the Hindu will never become submissive and obedient till they are reduced to poverty. I have, therefore, given orders that just sufficient shall be left to them from year to year, of corn, milk, and curds, but that they shall not be allowed to accumulate hoards and property." Again to my deep disappointment I found this too was not written by the "saffron brigade of Murli Manohar Joshi" but none else than Ziauddin Barani.
Had "Poor Ganguli" himself been not used to "glean from history what suits his bias" he would also have quoted that "when no more people remained above, since my object was the extermination of the infidels, grasping my sceptre-sword in my hand, I marched forward with my nobility and troops." And "I directed towers to be built on the mountain of the skulls of those unbelievers, and I ordered an engraver on stone." And "in the course of one hour the heads of ten thousand infidels were cut off. The sword of Islam was washed in the blood of the infidels, and all the goods and effects, the treasure and the grain. They (my troops) set fire to the houses and reduced them to ashes and they razed the buildings and the fort to the ground." And of course how could he have missed the massacre 100,000 infidel prisoners in an orgy in one day. Again to my deep disappointment I found this too was not written by the "saffron brigade of Murli Manohar Joshi" but by none else than the perpetrator Timur Lang in Malfuzat-I Timuri himself.
Had "Poor Ganguli" himself been not used to "glean from history what suits his bias" he would also have quoted that Aurangzeb had issued orders to the governors of provinces to "demolish the schools and temples of the infidels and put down their teachings and religious practices strongly." He also would have quoted that when Hindus assembled to protest the imposition of Jiziya, Aurangzeb ordered the Hindus "to be trodden under the feet of elephants and horses." He also would have quoted that Aurangzeb had also issued orders that "revenue collectors must all be Muslims and Hindu clerks and accountants be dismissed to make room for the Muhammadans." Again to my deep disappointment I found this too was not written by the "saffron brigade of Murli Manohar Joshi".
These are but a few grains of sand from the beaches of history of Muslim invaders and rulers.
No, "Poor Ganguli", it is neither Naipaul nor Joshi nor the "Hindutva champions" that are out of sync with the realities of yesterday or of today -- if you want to see who is out of sync, you have look within or at a mirror.
"Poor Ganguli", your frustration and anger at Naipaul (and Sangh parivar) is fully understandable. While the "historian elite" in India, during the last fifty years, has been able to control what the gullible and helpless common people read, the foreigners like "Poor Naipaul" and a few of the Sangh Parivar refuse to buy your version of fiction being peddled as history.
And lastly, deleting from the pages of history or from conscious memory the crimes, and the demolition and plunder of the Hindu temples by the Muslim invaders and rulers might please or give some kind of self-gratification to the fanatic fringe of the Marxists/ Leftists self appointed custodians of history but it must be turning the Ghazis from Mahmud Ghaznavi to Aurangzeb in their graves, seeing that all what they did is being completely wiped off.
All their labors "of love" have gone in vain, indeed?