Slugfest at Litfest!

When then Muslim invasions began in the early 10th century, the Hindu kingdoms and the Hindu culture was already in existence for 2000 years at least, with an extremely rigid caste system in place and widows being forced into Sati. So… not exactly a benevolent culture, no matter how much we try and view our own past with rose tinted glasses. Now, couple that with worshiping some three million Gods, idols at that, in thousands of temples scattered all over India with numerous tiny kingdoms, most often at war with each other. Not exactly the image of a single, great unified Hindu Nation or Empire or even belief system.

To the invading Islamic Believers nothing could have been more alien, and more blasphemous. One God versus millions, formless divinity versus idols everywhere, equality versus caste…and rich bounty to boot! In most cases of invasion in the ancient world, that conquerors would rape, pillage, loot, plunder and destroy was essentially par for the course. There is nothing unique here. And that is pretty much what the Muslim invaders did in India.

Naipaul has an extremely incisive, radical view about most things. Very fringe and very apart from conventional thinking. No holy cows for Mr. Naipaul. If you think about it, his comment on the Taj Mahal being decadent, cruel and wasteful makes sense. And that Babur destroying the Ram Temple to build the Babri Masjid was an act of hubris…again it’s looking at past times through a different lens, breathing new life into single dimensional characters, re-imagining what they may have thought or felt. You can romanticise it or you can tar it…Nothing wrong with that! What is life if not perspective…and passage of time only adds to it. Naipaul is hardly the last word in perspective; it’s just that he has one, as should all of us.

I think when Mr. Karnad questions Naipaul’s credentials as a historian, he is right. When he questions his irresponsibility in making inflammatory and possibly inaccurate comments about events past, he is right. When he questions his life time achievement versus an achievement as an author, he is right. But when he tries to airbrush what must have been a horrific reality for the Hindu populace being invaded by the sword of Islam, he is wrong.

That India was repeatedly invaded and plundered, its women raped, its temples and cities destroyed is fact. And there are no surprises here. That’s what invaders did – always have, still do. And even after the Mughals established their empire, they continued to rule with the sword. A quick read of Sikh history reveals a terrifying story…of persecution, torture and repeated destruction of a fledgling religion by the Mughals for over two centuries. This, while the Taj Mahal, a monument of love for the Emperor’s dead wife, was being constructed. If that is not cruel, then what is?

It’s just perspective. It depends how you choose to interpret historical events, with which lens you choose to view it, which side of the river you’re standing on…

But all of this is past history. We cannot be held responsible for the crimes of our forefathers. We can be ashamed about them, we can learn from them, we can promise not to repeat them, but we can’t be held responsible for them. Even Germany and Japan are moving on, and the horrors of World War 2 are barely 70 years old. But there is no denying that the Holocaust happened and no amount of airbrushing is going to erase that fact.

Naipaul is wrong if he can’t let the ancient Islamic invasions go, if he links them to the present day Muslim populace, if he tries to imagine a glorious ‘what if’ for a Hindu only India…And Karnad is wrong if he denies the horrors of the time, if he paints a rosy, pink picture over the dark, brooding greys, if he tries to imagine a glorious and happy ‘marriage of cultures’…

They’re both wrong, and they’re both right. It’s just perspective. Live and let live.