[Tippu Sultan's portraits from http://www.tipusultan.org/ Virajpet Clock Tower photo from http://commons.wikimedia.org ] 
The recent comments by our Education Minister Shankara Murthy on Tippu Sultan have renewed the battle which was fought many a times before. I often wonder if it is really worth commenting on this issue. Anyway without being cynical let me try to analyze this problem from my own perspective. When Shankara Murthy says that he is ready for debate, the question is – who will be in the opposition benches? Girish Karnad stakes claim for this post and rightly so because he has authored a play on Tippu. But minister’s side gets a boost from S L Bairappa who recently wrote a nice article in a Kannada newspaper supporting the claims of aristocracy of Tippu. So is the stage set for one of the greatest debate in Kannada soil? The very idea of having a debate is laughable. Are you telling me that the literary stalwarts in Karnataka who were recently involved in referring to each other as poisonous creatures will sit opposite to each other and discuss things seriously? I find this hard to imagine also. Even if we accept for a moment that there will be serious debate on this issue, can we expect that there will be any conclusions? Is it possible for people to step back from their positions and accept ideas with an open mind? Can you give me an instance where history is written with the acceptance of all? At the heart of this debate is the question of how one records history and how others should interpret it later. People who write history are always blamed for recording only its selective portions thereby glorifying or degrading personalities. Allegations of political beliefs of writer influencing the interpretation of history are also abounding. In this case also the two questions rose namely - whether Tippu was tolerant towards other religions and second whether he patronized Persian language at the cost of Kannada are answered essentially by the way you interpret the recorded history. That history is the account of winners is known to all. The relation between politics and history and the influence the former has on later is also well recorded. The rewriting of history is mostly dictated by political class rather than discovery of new evidence. The debates on interpretation of history have always been clashes of personalities and their ideologies. In the present case also S L Bairappa has made a direct attack on Girish Karnad saying that Karnad is a Marxist playwright and his plays are influenced by his beliefs. To whitewash Muslim rulers, it is alleged, is a preoccupation with Marxist historians. I am waiting to see whether Karnad will in turn label Bairappa as “agent of saffron brigade” as it is always done to people who take up to Muslim bashing. When I was following this controversy, I could recall some famous debates that went on before a few years on similar lines. Coincidentally THE HINDU (and FRONTLINE) was the battle ground for all of them. And as it always happens, these debates did not conclude and each party remained in their earlier position without moving an inch. It will be worthwhile to recall these debates to easily predict where this Tippu controversy will end. The first case refers to Dr. N S Rajaram's claim that he and his team has made sense of inscriptions found in Indus Valley. When his book under the name “The Deciphered Indus Script” was released, Michael Witzel, a Harvard University Indologist, and Steve Farmer, a comparative historian wrote a piece in FRONTLINE titled “Horseplay in Harappa” . Dr. N S Rajaram is a typical example of people who are not professional historians. He is referred to as expert in Artificial Intelligence and Robotics. His interest in ancient Indian history resulted in he becoming author of many books including the above mentioned one. But the so called leftist historians have rejected his theories and Witzel's article was an example of how academicians fight usually gets personal overtones. It is interesting to note that Rajaram and other so called “revisionist historians” suddenly came into picture once BJP came to power in center. Though people like Sita Ram Goel and Koenraad Elst have been forefront among people who wanted to rewrite history from “nationalist” perspective, it was only after BJP assumed power, their voices became more louder. Their theme of writing follows a familiar path. Muslim rulers are always painted in black and supporting material for this is usually given from either folk tradition or selective reading of records. The acts of local Hindu rulers in resisting the Muslim invaders are glorified almost to legendary levels. They also make it a point to voice protest at all things which they think will defame the glorious history of India. Curiously Michael Witzel was in news quite recently when he was involved in what was called as “California Hindu Textbook Controversy”. When there was an objection in US regarding certain references to Hindu Gods in the local textbooks, it was Witzel who refuted these claims. He was in fact supported by many Indian Historians at that point. Romila Thapar was one among them. Romila Thapar, has been involved in a long battle with “right wing historians”. Her piece on Somanatha temple invasion by Mohammad Ghazni and her authorization to the theory of Aryan invasion has always put her in the center of controversy. When she was elected as First Holder of the Kluge Chair in Countries and Cultures of the Library of Congress, it was alleged that he does not have required qualifications to hold the coveted chair. So the community of historians writing on ancient Indian history is divided right at the center. On one side are Romila Thapars who are alleged of whitewashing the barbarism of Muslim rulers in India. On the other side are Rajarams who in turn are accused of exaggerating the small troubles committed by Muslim invaders. This allegation and counter-allegation has left no place for open minded discussion. If one goes through the material available on net on the fights of these two camps one feels let down. The language they use to accuse each other can be at best described as rogue. Both fail to acknowledge the points raised by opponents and turn a blind eye to the evidence others put before them.
[ While I was writing this I was also remembered a famous fight between Ramachandra Guha and Arundhati Roy again in THE HINDU. Responding to a lengthy and emotional piece written by Roy on Narmada issue, Guha had suggested that Roy better stick to fiction. This raised questions on (celebrity) writers as activists. If I remember correctly Shashi Deshpande had supported Guha. Though Roy did not respond directly, she clarified many things and mocked at Guha in a interview given to N Ram who was Editor of FRONTLINE. One more instance of academicians and writers satisfying their personal ego.] 
This whole discussion has an interesting connection to the story we are dealing today. For interested people, I suggest reading this book titled “Tippu Sultan – Villan or Hero”
This book is published by “Voice of Dharma” whose affiliated authors include the names which I had mentioned earlier as right-wing historians including Dr. Rajaram. It was nice reading this book but it had same material repeated by different authors. The crux of the book is to prove that Tippu had committed serious crimes against non-Muslims especially in Malbar region.
The episodes listed above involving Rajaram and Witzel should convince you that writing history (and reading it) is never an easy task. So even the book in question cannot be taken as it is and should be viewed with suspicion. But the problem is people who suspect and question this book will have their own prejudice. Eventually we will be left with more questions than answers.
So question of whether Tippu wanted to promote Kannada or wanted to establish a Islamic Kingdom is a question which, I think, can never be settled. Theories and counter theories will continue to emerge. At the end of the day, it is your personal belief and ideology which will shape your sense of history.
Part of the problem lies in the fact that history writing has never really achieved the level of sophistication that science has reached. Experiments, proofs are accepted in science and theories change. Rejection of planet status for Pluto is a prime example on how scientific world works. But the field of history is still reluctant to accept this. So history writing has become a battleground for supremacy among ideologies which historians believe in.
Let me end this piece with a small personal reference. In fact I wanted to write on this issue because of the connection my home town has with Tippu. It is recorded that Tippu was responsible for my home town “Virarajendrapet” (now Virajpet) to be started by a King upon whose name the town exists. Here is how this story is told.
In 1790's Tippu had made it a mission to convert everyone in his kingdom to Islam faith. His eyes fell on Christians from Konkan (Mangalore) region. He forced them to come to Mysore to be converted into Islam. They began their jouncy to Mysore through the present Kodagu (Coorg).
When they were passing by, the local King Virarajendra was moved by their story. He promised them a place to stay. Thus built was the settlement between two hills which is today known as Virajpet. The King also built a Church for them and even got a priest from Goa. In fact the contributions made by the King are remembered till today.
This Church which is named after “St. Anne's” also started a school where I studied. In 1992 the Church celebrated its bi-centenary and the school its 150’Th anniversary. So Virajpet was born because Tippu forced conversion.
If Shankara Murthy and Bairappa learns this fact, I know they will be delighted. Let me add more delight. The temples of Bhagamandala (where river Kavery first appears after Bhagamandala) still carry the marks of aggression shown by Tippu's troops. The stone elephants and other sculptures here are disfigured allegedly by Tippu.
So am I in the “right” side of this debate. This is the problem. You spell something and you are branded as right or left. If my previous statements have favored right, let me now take a “leftist” stand.
I somehow accept the argument which was put forward to say Mangal Pandey was a accidental hero. As it was said in this argument, Mangal did not have the idea of India as motherland. For him, motherland meant the state he belong to (more precisely the kingdom he lived in).
The same argument can be applied to Tippu as well as all Kings and Chieftains who ruled India before invasion. For them all people who invaded their land were opponents. They did not distinguish between a neighborhood King and British empire. In an attempt to save their motherland (read kingdom) they fought the invaders. That the invaders happened to be British is just a coincident.
Take for example the story of Onake Obavva of Chitragurga. While naratting this story, Hyder Ali is described as Villan. But in the struggle against British, he becomes Hero.
So let us forget painting people in black and white. Let us stick to objective narration of history. When Tippu is explained to children let it be told that he committed x y and z crimes along with a b and c good works. Let us stop judging historic figures based on isolated incidents.
But are Shankar Murthys, Bairappas and Karnads ready to listen?
|
