Scuba Diving 36 feet deep in Goa (Surreal but Nice!)

The debate on Times Now Summit 2022 between Salman Khurshid, Dr. Vikram Sampath, Sai Deepak, and Pavan K Varma showed how disconnected the left, right, and the middle are from each other. We all know these 'luminaries', as Rahul Shivshankar, Editorial Director & Editor-in-Chief @TimesNow introduces them. How left and right do not apply to Indian political viewpoints is a matter for another time, therefore pardon my use of the western paradigm of left and right for the rest of this blog post.

Times Now Debate, 2022

We all know Sai Deepak through his YouTube debate with Asaduddin Owaisi (Sai Deepak in fact moderated the debate) a few years back. And since then he has authored a couple of books on the historical context that surrounded the drafting of the constitution of India between 1946 to 1950. His first book on India, that is Bharat forced us to rethink colonialism and introduced an entirely distinct scholarly way to look at middle-eastern imperialism that began with the Turkic-Islamic invasion with the first invasion in 711 CE resulting in the conquest of Sind by Arab General Muhammad Qasim.

Dr. Vikram Sampath has been under social media assault by the left liberals since he published the biography of Veer Savarkar. He has been subjected to a malicious and disgraceful campaign by the likes of Audrey Truschke (Rutgers University), Rohit Chopra (Santa Clara University), and Ananya Chakravarti (Georgetown University). But besides this, he is an imminent and respected historian in his own right, having published books on eclectic and diverse topics like; Splendours of Royal Mysore: The Untold Story of the Wodeyars; My Name Is Gauhar Jaan: The Life and Times of a Musician; Voice of the Veena: S Balachander: A Biography; Women of the Records and Indian Classical Music and the Gramophone: 1900-1930. 

And on the other side of the moderator, you have a diplomat and a seasoned politician. Pavan K Varma is a bit of an unknown to me. He is the former Indian Ambassador to Bhutan and has written numerous books exploring Indian and Hindu identity. I'll try to read some of his latest books before I can comment on his ideological or personal viewpoint. 

And last but not least is Salman Khurshid, who was a Member of Parliament and Cabinet Minister under Prime Minister Manmohan Singh (Indian National Congress). His resume easily overshadows anyone else's on the stage. His career has been controversial, like any other politician, but he is still respected outside his political party circle.

The Debate

The debate topic was 'Suppression of Indic View - Real of Imaginary'. As should be obvious from their background, both Sai Deepak and Vikram Sampath have a point of view that affirms that specific aspects of Indic history were softened, or omitted, or outrightly altered. We can argue whether this was done to make history more amenable to a particular section of the Indian minority population. Alternatively, we can argue whether there were hidden political agendas that the political dispensation that was in control of democratic institutions after independence was trying to achieve. 

Mr. Khurshid in his opening remark starts off by claiming that it will be an exaggeration to say that there was "wholesale falsification of history" and there was no Nehurivian consensus that supported any such effort. He divides the history of India into ancient, medieval, and modern India. This aligns with the division of India's past by erudite historians like Upinder Singh who in her book, A History of Ancient and Early Medieval India, divides India's past into "ancient, early medieval, medieval, and modern periods".

The "Line of Subjugation"

Mr. Khurshid makes an interesting comment on demarcating the past by using the line of subjugation as the main criteria that divides India's right and left ideologies. He seems to indicate that line of subjugation for him, using his left-leaning perspective, is in the modern period when European powers (British, Dutch & Portuguese primarily) anchored on the shores of India under the garb of trading but slowly started subjugating territory for more imperialistic reasons. And (Mr. Khurshid seems to suggest that) India's right wants to shift this line to medieval India when Arabic and Turkic invasions began in the northwest of India and slowly gained a foothold in northern India. He even carries on to say that there may be dimensions of medieval history that he may disagree with Mr. Sampath, "you call something an invasion or you call something a migration".

What is subjugation? Was India subjugated?

The word subjugation means 'the act of defeating people or a country and ruling them in a way that allows them no freedom'. In the modern context, an example of such subjugation is the treatment of native Americans by European colonizers, this is one such example all can relate to. Can the same be applied to medieval India? Quoting historian R C Majumdar from his book, The Struggle for Empire, "once the Turkish Sultanate was installed at Delhi and Islam came to be enthroned in political power, wherever the writ of Sultans ran, the proselytizing activities of Islam became active; the Hindus were denied the right to public worship and were subjected to civil disabilities and other indignities". There was a trend that is observed for the next millennia until the fall of the Mughal Empire. In the case of India (or as Hindostan or Al-Hind as referred to by medieval Arabs historians), the native polytheistic population was at the receiving end of this treatment. 

One may disagree on the intensity of oppression or may play whataboutery on specific instances but the polytheistic and pluralistic fabric of Indian society was gouged upon. 

The European subjugation of India has its own laundry list of tortures, oppressions, proselytization, and economic loot that happened during the British Raj and to some extent by the Dutch & Portugues too. So the Indian sub-continent was subjugated under specific ideologies both in medieval and modern India. 

Some non-sensical arguments against subjugation

#1 Deny the existence of India as an entity in ancient times

The first counterargument typically argues that India as a political identity didn't exist hence no group identity can be attributed to the natives residing here. So if you can deny any ancient concept of the cultural unity of India so subjugation is make-believe too. Yet these arguments fall flat on their belly when questioned on the formal definition of "what is a nation" which is a fairly pre-modern term. 

And secondly, this national identity and unity can be easily seen in the spiritual (or dharmic) and socio-cultural threads that connect the Himalayas in the north to the ocean in the south. Enough work is available in the public domain from authors (Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru, Bipin Chandra Pal, R.K. Mookerjee, and C.J.H. Hayes) that are on either side of the political spectrum on the unity of India. 

Contemporary politicians like Rahul Gandhi have more recently tried to spin the same message in a new bottle by defining India as a "union of states". Yet, the constitution uses the term 'nation' as well as the phrase 'union of states' without differentiating between the two. The creators of the constitution knew that unity and integrity of the 'Nation' were paramount. So, there isn't really a difference. 

And there is enough spiritual, cultural, and historic evidence that reveals this unity. Just a side note, in a lesser-known battle of Rajasthan in 738 CE three major Indian empires joined hands to protect the borders of modern Sindh against the Arab invaders. This included Bappa Rawal of the Kingdom of Mewar, Nagabhata 1 of Gurjar-Pratihara, and Jaysimh Varman of the Rashtrakuta Empire. So these three major empires recognized that the entity of Bharatvarsha needs to be protected against the invasion. 

First Arab Invasion - and the alliance of Indian kings who fought against the invasion

#2 Invasion and Migration in Medival India

If the Purva-paksha (or the other side of the argument) cannot argue against the cultural unity of Indian civilization then the next step is to soften the invasion to a migration. As humans, we've been migrating for thousands of years and the very first one was out of Africa. And later, the hunter & gatherer lifestyle added to this migration. We also have evidence of trading between ancient civilizations like Mesopotamia, Sumeria, and India as far back as four to five thousand years ago.

However, invasion has its telltale signs, including a hoard of armed men advancing towards your home with the intention to pillage your belongings or impose their rule & culture over the natives. This is exactly what happened to the Indian subcontinent when invaders like Alexander of Macedon, Muhammed Bin Qasim of Arabia, Mahmud of Ghazni, or as recently as Ahmad Shah Abdali of Afghanistan engaged in the act of invasion. 

In each of these, there is enough literature from court historians and other contemporary travelers that describe scenes of large-scale massacres followed by the desecration of local temples that were revered by the native population. For example, the first mosque was built in the Indian subcontinent in Banbhore (possibly the site of the mosque at Debal) in the 9th century, and a Siva Linga was found forming the lowest steps of the flight of stairs in all the doorways. The journal 'Ancient Pakistan, Vol. XV, 2002' states this was quite common in early Muslim rule. Can we conclude 'subjugation' as the intent?

http://journals.uop.edu.pk/papers/AP_v15_1to9.pdf

Conclusion

The thirty-odd-minute debate again exposed that there is no meeting ground where the right and left can agree on a fruitful way forward. There was rhetoric from Mr. Kumar when he used "Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam" which is a phrase from the Hindu text of Maha Upanishad that talks about the world as one family. And Mr. Khurshid seems to suggest that by factually presenting the atrocities committed by these Turko-Arabic invaders in medieval India, such a conversation is projecting Indian Muslims in the same light as these historical invaders! 

But in this rhetoric and irrational response by the left, the key message by Mr. Deepak and Mr. Sampath was diluted. I am reminded of the words of author Prafull Goradia who says in his book Hindu Masjids, "Hindu masjids personify the deep chasm or the sharp conflict between the Hindu ethos and Muslim zealotry. The conflict must be resolved. Why are we anxious? For the simple reason that without resolution, India cannot acquire the spirit of collective honour. And without national pride, the country cannot leap forward".

The right is asking for two simple things as Mr. Deepak says, "let the tone be of reconciliation but there must be no comprising of facts".