 |
|
|
Frightened by the growing avalanche of archeological evidence, which threatens to pulverize Marxist historiography, the desperation of leftist academics to salvage their rendition of the past is entirely understandable. Decades of labour expended in effacing references to the destruction of Hindu temples, shifting the focus instead to sectarian Hindu conflict, is in jeopardy. Like the spot of blood that would not wash off Lady Macbeth's hands, the evidence of the past simply refuses to go away.
In fact, it has recently resurfaced in a particularly damning form. The emphasis in so-called rightist discourse so far was mainly on the demolition of Hindu sacred structures by iconoclasts. But now, in the heart of Akbar's Fatehpur Sikri, a mounting debris of Jain statues is currently being unearthed. Given the Jain community's impeccable non-militant credentials and Akbar's reputation as the best face of Indian Islam, this casts an entirely new light on inter-community relations in medieval India. That is why, even though Jain-Hindu reactions have been muted so far, Marxists have rushed in to defend their carefully sanitized version of the past.
Dissimulating rather ingenuously, they have questioned the very legitimacy of the excavations on the ground that as Fatehpur Sikri is a famous monument and tourist site, there was no justification for re-opening the site to discover an older settlement. At the same time, they have gone on the defensive and argued that Brahminical intolerance could well account for the mutilation of the Jain idols. That would, they say, also explain the near-perfect condition of a Saraswati statue, given the goddess' clear brahminical associations.
Unfortunately for leftist academics, the time for such crude theories is fast running out. Not only has there been a visible political consolidation of the Hindus, but intellectually too, the tide has turned to their advantage. A re-examination of religious texts, historical records, and literary treatises has forced a growing body of respected non-Marxist scholars to reach entirely different conclusions about India's religious culture. For instance, they now believe that undue stress has been laid on the so-called orthodox-heterodox religious divide. In historical practice, the scholars say, the division between Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism was never so fundamental as to foreclose the possibility of mutual borrowing and exchange.
Explaining the presence of Hindu gods and so-called "Hindu elements" in Jain temples, for example, the scholars highlight a shared religious culture wherein divine figures and even ritual forms were re-incorporated, re-formulated and re-situated. In the Jain context, the distinction was that Hindu gods were given a lower place in the hierarchical classification of souls, and this was visible in the layout of images in their temples.
The doctrinal, ritual and institutional similarities between Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism were simply too marked to be overlooked. The Jains and Shaiva Siddhantis, for example, both believed in a plurality of souls fettered by maya, which could be liberated through karma. They also believed in the continued separate existence of liberated souls after moksha. Both placed great emphasis on physical austerities. The Shaiva sadhaka, moreover, bore a striking resemblance to the Jain atmacintaka nirapeksa, as did the Shaiva matha to Jain monasteries. All of this points to a socio-religious continuum and a highly interactive spiritual environment.
Buddhism too, is increasingly being recognized as an integral part of the Indian religious tradition. Buddha's legendary biography incorporates many of the characteristics of the Rig Vedic god Indra, as also of the Jain tirthankara, Parasvanath. Buddhism was closely allied to the Upanishads, both in its advent and in its philosophy. Brahmins constituted the largest group of monks and lay supporters of early Buddhism, and were in fact strongly represented in most religious movements in India. Several key Jain philosophers were Brahmins.
The claim of Brahminical intolerance is mischievous and dishonest given the Brahminical record in matters spiritual. The Brahmins were renowned for their tendency to absorb, assimilate and upgrade deities, not for exhibiting animus towards them. The great god Krishna, who has been linked by scholars to a deity of the Vrishni tribe, was elevated by them to the highest godhead. Similarly Rudra, identified by many academics with low-caste possession cults of the cremation ground, was in the Svetasvatara Upanishad recognized as the Absolute Reality.
While leftists have not hesitated to accuse Brahmins of intolerance, they have downplayed, if not purged, evidence of Muslim bigotry. The truth, however, is that even the great Emperor Akbar flirted with the most orthodox forms of Sunni Islam at various stages in his career. He persecuted Shias and Mahadawis, forcibly converted Hindus, rechristened Hindu holy cities and levied the Jazia. Though he did finally seek a more neutral legitimization to supplement his rule, the state under him remained unmistakably a Muslim state, "Muslim in its foundation and in the ultimate locus of its power."
Seventy percent of Akbar's officers were from families that had migrated to India either with Humayun or had arrived after his accession. There were just twenty-one Hindus in the ranks of the upper nobility and of them seventeen were Rajputs. It may be added that Rajput inclusion was dictated by considerations of realpolitik. The emperor gained access to their considerable military resources and used them to keep his rebellious immigrant followers in check.
The harsh truth is that the level of integration between the two communities remained pitiful even in the best of times. The Hindustani or all-India composite culture that one constantly hears about involved the assimilation of the Hindu administrative elite into Muslim culture and the Islamization of Muslims away from Hindu culture. The pattern was continued by Muslim provincial rulers after the decline of the Mughal Empire. Prayag, Ayodhya, and Benaras became "mughalizing" cities under the Nawabs of Awadh, who continued the cultural patterns established by the Mughals.
Given the Hindu disposition,
many of them certainly worshipped at the shrines of Muslim saints, but
the guardians of the shrines ensured that they never got close to the central
enclosure and a distinction was always maintained between Hindu and Muslim
devotees. The latter, moreover, were never encouraged to visit Hindu temples.
The history of the Hindu-Muslim encounter before the British period has
led some discerning scholars to concede that if communalism was 'constructed'
during the colonial period, it was constructed in part from already existing
material. The excavations at Fatehpur Sikri seem to reinforce this view.
This archive was generated by (modified version of) hypermail.pl 1.00
|
|
|