Towards the end of his life, Gandhiji’s ideas and influence had waned within the Congress party. Nehru was never a follower of Gandhiji’s ideas. Alth… - S. L. Bhyrappa

Girish Karnad has taken the title of his play, “ The dreams of Tipu Sultan” from a collection of leaflets written by Tipu in his own handwriting in Farsi. Major Beatson, a Britisher who edited the English edition of this collection gave it the name “The dreams of Tipu Sultan.” I have read this work. Tipu used to be anxious about the fact that he had to have absolute privacy when he was writing this, and later, while reading it. This collection was found in the royal latrine in the Srirangapattanam palace. Tipu’s most loyal servant, Habibulla identified and confirmed that these were indeed written by his master. Today, both the original and the translation are at the India Office in London. When one reads it, the true extent of Tipu’s religious fanaticism becomes clearer. He always refers to Hindus as Kaffirs and the British as Christians. A long-bearded Maulvi frequently appears in his dreams; Tipu goes to Mecca on a pilgrimage; Prophet Mohammad tells a long-bearded Arab, “Tell Tipu that I shall not enter Heaven without Tipu;” Tipu is then on a mission to convert all non-Muslims to Islam and Islamizes all non-Islamic nations. Tipu never talks about modernizing India and is furious that the Christians (British) are the biggest obstacles in his path; he desires to drive them out.

Forget Indian cinema, especially Bollywood cinema, which sells titillating products. It is no different with those who write Lavanis. But why do those who write serious literature indulge in titillation of a different kind? Why aren’t they faithful to historical truths? Why don’t they escape from the clutches of historians committed to their ideology and use their independent critical faculties to study and understand historical evidence? S. Shettar (past Chairman of the ICHR) who justifies Girish Karnad says, “In his play about Tipu, Girish Karnad has kept only the play in view and has tried to explore the good qualities of Tipu. Historians, playwrights, and creative artists each have their own ideals.” What are the differences between ideology and ideal here? The litterateur can somehow escape using the parachute of convenience called ideal. However, if a historian too tries to use this convenience, what will be the fate of historical truths? Marxist historians just don’t seem to understand the importance and subtlety of this question. The less said about the litterateurs who are in their clutches the better.

Western historians who began to write India’s history by following the European historical method have paved us a good path. But their scholarship was fuelled by an ulterior motive. They had already developed the following narrative: Indian culture is the Vedic culture. The creators of this culture were Aryans, who came into India from abroad. They destroyed the native culture and established themselves here. Thus, everybody who came thereafter were alien invaders. At one stage the Muslims came. Now, the British have come. Therefore, if somebody argued that the British weren’t native to India, they had a readymade response: neither are you. This was institutionalized in universities, and the media. English-educated young men and women carried this perception, too. This narrative also informed that the Rg Veda, held sacred by the Aryans was composed by them when they were outside India. This narrative severed the spiritual bond that connected Indians with India. The result was that over hundred years, Englisheducated Indians suffered a sense of alienation. This narrative also germinated and escalated the discord among some Indians who saw themselves as the native Dravidians whom the invading Aryans subjugated. Those who understand human nature well know that it is easy to beget enmity and that when it is proved that the enmity is based on false reasons, it is still difficult to let go of ill-feeling.