It talks about Jain/Buddhist temples destroyed by Hindus. And for obviously historical reasons some of the discussions turns to Cholas. And the impalement of Jainas come into the picture. IIRC did we not discuss this some time back? Also if my memory serves me right, KAN does not give too much credit to the Jainas impalement, right?
Whether we want to discuss this in the group or not, this particular conversation seems to be with someone ignorant of history or its complexities.
a) Chola destruction of Jain / Buddhist temples: Yes, the same Cholas who gave permission to build the Chudamani Vihara at Nagai, and the same Cholas who's most famous lady (Kundavi, obviously) caused the construction of at least two Jain temples in her name... Somehow this doesn't add up?
b) Kulothunga against the "Shaivites": This doesn't even make any sense! He himself was a Shaivite... Probably he means Vaishnavites, but even that is dicey - look at our group archives for discussions on Srirangam's patronage during Kulothunga's time. Count me confused on this count...
c) Anuradhapura: Dealing with this as a different point because it's complex: Yes, war is nasty. And when it's hotly contested, it's quite normal for troops to run amok and destroy cities, tear down buildings and so on. On the other hand, I'm not aware of _any_ instance where Rajaraja or any other Chola proudly proclaims that they destroyed a place of worship - if at all, there are instances of their continuing patronage of some religious institutions in the places they conquered. It's quite possible that a city was destroyed - purely on strategic grounds, but to equate that with the wanton destruction of places of worship is a long stretch. Is there any epigraphic evidence of (say) an order to destroy the places of worship of the "hated Buddhists"? I think not...
The whole thing seems to be more of a political discussion than a historic discussion - prompted by you-know-what. If the participants in this debate actually have any real history to discuss, _away_ from political rhetoric, maybe one can reciprocate. This debate, however, seems to be searching for historic vindication of a particular, and dearly held, position (or two positions, possibly) that have more to do with the participants' prejudices than with any constructive debate. I think it's not worth it to reply to either side in this, beyond pointing out the facts at hand and keeping quiet.
There is nothing wrong in discussing but utmost care must be taken to respect the sentiments and with clear proof. It should not be like the historians who when scrutansied by law, answered like - i read in news paper, my maid servant told so etc etc.
1. Kulothunga 1 and vaishnavism. Not only srirangam and ennayiramdiscussed in our archieves - Tirumala, All vishnu temples of Kanchi, mannargudi, Thiruvattaru and many more speak about his contribution
The ulgaladha perumal temple inscription is published in details by TN govt. I have the book. will scan andpost - may be this week end or next week end. very long and is like a drama. If any one had any doubts on him - these 2 inscriptions will answer them.
In war or when extremist hide in a holy place - somethings are inevitable. Independent India which is more secular than the secualrism itself ,faced the crisis twice.
Shashwath: History when there are no clear evidences; becomes a matter of interpretation or connecting the dots. And even when there is archaeological evidence we will only hear part of the story. Rest of the story has to be pieced together.
With due diligence we can shift the chaff from the wheat. Politics is like friction, it is part and parcel of our life on this planet.
1) So how much evidence we have for or against the allegation? 2) How much did the historians deduce? 3) What is the agenda of the historians and sundry?
> I'd question that. When there's no evidence, do we have any business > attempting to interpret and connect dots that cannot be connected?
It is a valid question, but historians routinely do that.
> would lead to our own ponniyinselvan.in, where there's a >discussion from last year in which you yourself have participated.
Yes, this subject fascinates me. I am trying to understand our culture better; and history is just one facet. I am not sure if you are pointing to a set of discussions that I started that compared the Muslim and Hindu Kings war atrocities/actions.
>>>Debates on Twitter generally seem to devolve into name calling and soundbites. Let us ignore those debates; my intention of posting and seeking thoughts was not about the modes and intentions of those two but what experts & amateurs in this group thought about our history. How similar or different were we when compared to others? After all we all are humans, and have our strength and weakness? But did our culture dissuade us to do things that other cultures did not mind doing? We have hero worships, poems glorifying heroes and our history is also filled with blood and war.
> c) The references and examples given by Salil Tripathy in that link > are laughable, with the (possible) exception of Harsha of Kashmir, who was by all accounts, an Indian Caligula, so that has to be dealt with differently. I recently watch a movie on Caligula; wow it was very disturbing, but had lot of skin though :-) But people like Salil, like the "eminent historians" can capture the common people's attention and mind by constantly repeating their version of "history". So if experts with knowledge should step in to set things right. For example people like Elst who have researched these subjects in detail.
Dear SPS Sir Interpretation of history differs from connecting the dots, my opinion. We respect and have pride about the kings we had. Learning about them fully makes us to think about their achievements, good deeds, how the people were living, justice on those days, and so on. If the interpretation depends on this and are acceptable, it is proved, we accept. Connecting the dots and making a history means just drawing lines according to the person's thoughts and wishes and describe whatever he thinks.No matter about the references from where they were got. If powered to write anything, and if peopleare receiving them without knowing what is what, any one can rewrite the history according to their own thoughts and wishes.
So the diluted proofs, even they are truths, have to get more diluted and disappear. That is what happening here. History cannot be rewritten from what has happened - is now a diluted truth.
Since we have started discussing the subject - if moderators permit - can the Allahabad judges observation on historian's knowledge on History - may be discussed.?
Very sensitive and needs prior acceptance by all are required.
Connecting dots does not HAVE to mean like what you describe. As described in the wikipedia, it is also about associating one idea to another. In the realm of history it could be drawing a bigger picture by connecting smaller evidences (or facts). This process can be done in biased and unbiased manner. Interpretation comes in for example in the case of Marxist Historians, who look at the past using the prism of Marxism. For some of them, it becomes a class warefare or issue. They look at the past in terms of the oppressed and oppressor, the exploited and the exploiter etc. So when explaining the past to the present audience the history could be presented in a charitable way (or otherwise) based on the biases.
Dear Sir Thats what I have said. Connecting dots means describing things with associated ideas. Ideas differ from man to man. Every human has his own prism for looking into things. Interpretation means explaining with relevant, connectedrecords and furnishing matters as far as possible to the benefit of society. History through prism will bring differences. A true historian looks only for truths and accept them.
Tirupati Balaji was himself from the period of Silapathikaram for centuries. Rajendra's steps to Ganges were to establish cholas and to stop others entering through Vengi. Why should we think otherwise and describe them differently? Let us learn history as it is and accept the good which can benefit our society and forget the bad.
I'm against this - at least for the time being. This is still too much of a hot-button topic, and I think it would be wise to not become political on this forum. However, I'm willing to discuss it offline, or in another forum where it is appropriate.
I've always come from the scientific side, where we start with the facts, and come up with a theory that explains those facts. We then use that theory to make predictions which can be evaluated based on either current or new evidence, and then discarded if it doesn't fit the evidence. A theory is never accepted as "true" - it's only valid as long as it doesn't make a prediction contrary to reality, or is unable to explain a part of reality. The theory is only a lens through which we view the universe.
Marxist or Hindutva, my problem is with both - you don't assume a theory and then pick and choose the facts supporting only that theory. I don't believe that this is the correct way to do science, and history _is_ a science (even if a soft one). I don't care for either "side" in this case.
I'm perfectly capable of accepting that any of my pet theories (quite a few of which I've advanced on this list) are wrong, if the evidence says so. I've changed my position on many things over the years. Once, Gandhi was asked how he could say that he stood for the truth, when what he said on Monday was different from what he said on Tuesday - his answer was, "Ah, but I know something more today that I didn't, yesterday".
These pure Left or Right ideologies are useless as tools in evaluating history. I feel that we should stick to the facts, and when we interpret as we surely will, we should be very careful to explain what is the fact, and what is the interpretation. Interpretation and "connecting dots" is all very well, but no good comes of presenting opinion as fact, even if that opinion is later proved to be right.
Knowingly or unknowingly the word 'right' is deeply entrenched in the daily usage by the media - to classify conservative/ outspoken traditional hindus. It is a shame that this term is mainly applied to hindus only. But on the bright side, 'right' is a good word for us in thought, word and action. We do auspicious things with the right hand, do 'pradakshina' keeping the murthi to the right, and 'panigrahana' with the right hands of both the bride and the groom. Let there be more 'rights'; the rowdy elements can be kept in check if the genuine rights stand up to the chorus abuse of the non-rights. Sampath
I agree with lots of things you say. But even the true historian - which for our discussion will be a historian without MUCH bias - will have lots of gaps and confusing data. For example let us take a common issue of name & title. So many Kings have the same name. Even the best of the best historians have to put two and two together to arrive at the dates and clarify matters. I remember recently reading there are more than 20 Agastayars mentioned in literature.
My first difference with you is that I feel even a good, true and honorable historian will have to deduce, like Sherlock Holmes, based on evidences to fill in the missing gaps.
The second difference is when you use the words "true history". That is a loaded term; unless we have rock solid data we cannot use those words. Let us take the case of Tirupathi - now we have description about it from two different points of view. Which one is correct? What is truth? Who decides it? How is it decided (that is easy to answer, based on evidence).
The pure Left and Right are indeed useless because it is an European construct that views the world in black or white. Like the Marxists who slice n dice the world in terms of class.
Was going through Nehru's Discovery of India, some of the basics were not properly stated. It looks like history as future climbs in, gets more views to counter the old ones.