Category: History

After Ranjit Singh’s empire, I have always been fascinated by Maratha and Mysore. But making a movie like “Chaava” is an absolute disgrace to history as well as cinema.

In 1526, Babar won the First Battle of Panipat against Ibrahim Lodhi and established the Mughal Empire in India: ending Delhi Sultanate’s rule. But was that India as of India today? Or even as India-Pakistan-Bangladesh together as one unified empire? Ever?

No. It never even existed as a concept. British India made this map of India. Before that, it never even was a concept.

Consider ‘India-Pakistan-Bangladesh’ as ‘Sub-Continent’ from now on in this piece.

Over 2,000 years ago, it was Indus Valley Civilization. In scattered parts of Punjab, Sindh and KP of today’s Pakistan.

The oldest civilization in Sub-Continent was Mehrgarh of Balochistan which was founded 7,000 BC i.e., 9,000 years ago. I wrote on Mehrgarh some time back which you can find on the page. Ironically, we have tried our best to keep Balochistan as it was 9,000 years ago. Quite remarkable.

Maurya Empire (322 to 185 BC) can be called the closest to unified Sub-Continent but even that didn’t cover entire South India (Karnataka, Kerala, Andhra Pradesh, and Tamil Nadu) as well as East India (Mizoram, Manipur, Nagaland, Assam, and Meghalaya). Here goes 9 states of modern India altogether.

But Maurya Empire had Afghanistan and certain parts of Iran (Persia) too. Is that part of Indian myth too?

There were other empires like Gupta, Chola, etc. but none was as big as Maurya. After Maurya, it was only Mughal Empire from which you can forcibly extract the concept of unified Sub-Continent. In AD times – not CE or BC – it was only Mughal Empire that can give the modern saffron Indians the logic of grand unified region. Ideally speaking, Mughals should have been the heroes of Modi and BJP.

There is another myth of Ghauri and Ghaznavi as being ‘outsiders’ who came and looted and killed India. Well, that’s neither entirely true nor entirely false. You don’t need to take side of anyone in history. Just present it as it was.

First of all, there were no insiders or outsiders at that time. If Afghanistan was part of Maurya Empire, then both Ghauri and Ghaznavi were insiders. That would be enough of an argument for myopic idiots who just cherry-pick an idea with an already established bias of theirs.

After Asoka of Mauryan Empire, teachings of Buddha were prevalent as much in Afghanistan as they were in Northern Pakistan and India.

But yes, both Ghauri and Ghaznavi came for wealth in modern day Pakistan and India, which they did with wars and bloodshed. The demolition of Temple of Somnath was the ugliest action of Ghaznavi, and no one should defend or glorify that.

But also remember that long before Ghauri and Ghaznavi, Maryan Rulers attacked Afghanistan for wealth too. Asoka extended his empire to Afghanistan. Kanishka also included large parts of Afghanistan in his empire.

Again, no need to take side. You don’t need to defend anyone.

By the way, ever wondered why Alexander The Great came to India and almost reached Lahore? Yes, he wanted to teach philosophy of his teacher Aristotle to the people of India, but Raja Porus was too uneducated to understand the philosophy of life.

Alexander The Great was The Great. Ghauri and Ghaznavi were not. Well, none of them were. They were warrior kings and rulers.

Anyway, back to the topic. India was never a unified Sub-Continent ever in history. Until the British Raj arrived in the land of hundreds of princely states – all fighting each other. Cake for East India Company. Just like it was for Mamluks to establish Delhi Sultanate in 1206.

It was Delhi Sultanate from 1206 (Qutbuddin Aibak) to 1526 (Ibrahim Lodhi) that not only saved the region from the mighty power of Mongols but also established a system of governance. There were definitely flaws and issues but those were modern times of India in comparison to the rest of the world.

That Delhi Sultanate – which is also being wrongly portrayed in modern cinema – made Delhi the capital of the region for the first time. Delhi of Delhi Sultanate made Delhi as we know it today. That bad too?

The first female ruler of the Sub-Continent was Raziya Sultana (1236 to 1240). A small but significant rule.

By the way, which region ever had a dynasty named after slaves?

Currency was created. Coins were introduced. Trade flourished. Region was consolidated. Mostly liberal and secular social values. Sub-Continent became the richest region of the world. Roads were made. Shelters were established. Security was gradually enhanced. Infrastructures were raised.

Reminds me of another movie “Padmaavat” where Alauddin Khilji was ridiculed. Yes, he was not particularly noble or righteous ruler, but he did stop mighty Mongols from invading the Sub-Continent. He raised a big military and reorganized it. He branded his cavalry. Trade, market, and economy were reformed under his rule. That was all ignored obviously. Historians do not write him off as he was portrayed in that blockbuster movie. He holds a significant value among historians.

Come to the First Battle of Panipat of 1526 again. Yes, an outsider Babar (a Mongol to establish Mughal Empire) captured Delhi. Died in 1530. Humayun ruled from 1530-56 (excluding 5 years of Sher Shah Suri from 1540-45). Then Akbar from 1556-1605. After Akbar, all Mughal rulers had Indian mothers’ generation after generation. Yet, they remain outsiders for idiots.

The movie “Chhaava” mentioned traitors on both Mughal and Maratha sides but kept on ridiculing one side more than the other. Even ridiculing a certain bloodline.

Then the guerilla actions were too funny. A whole troop was decimated by a small guerilla army of Marathas swinging with ropes through trees. Another troop was killed by guerilla jumping out of river to impossible heights. Another guerilla army was waiting underground. No, not in the underground bunkers but just underneath the earth (without oxygen) of a village which was already attacked and destroyed by the Mughals. Only after the village was burnt down, they jumped out of the earth to decimate the Mughals.

History isn’t a comedy like that.

Founder of Maratha Empire – Shivaji Maharaj – had a Treaty of Purandar (1665) with Mughals. Aurangzeb Alamgir treated him honorably and his Darbar referred to him as ‘Raja’. Shivaji was a progressive and brave ruler but no he wasn’t born in direct defiance of Mughals. He wanted to establish his own Maratha Rule, and he wanted his sons to take-over after him. It wasn’t ‘Sawaraj’ as depicted in the movie.

Marathas under Shivaji attacked Mughals first in 1650s. After Mughals defeated them, the above-mentioned treaty was signed. In 1666, he came to meet Aurangzeb who treated him not according to Shivaji’s expectations. He showed his anger by publicly protesting. Hence, the king ordered him to be placed under house arrest.

Could have been killed instantly along with his son by Aurangzeb as the later was portrayed overly ruthless in every scene of the movie. No?

Son of Shivaji, Sambhaji (later on Chhatrapati Sambhaji Maharaj Vicky Kaushal) once defected from his father to the Mughals in 1667. He joined Mughals and left Marathas for a brief time. However, he went to join Marathas again later on. Did the movie provide the audience with even a minor hint of that?

According to certain historians – not entirely credible – in the Battle of Bhupargarh (1679), Sambhaji was fighting with the Mughal army against the Marathas. Again, this needs to be verified diligently as internet has so much varying information on this topic. Wikipedia claims it to be true, but Wikipedia is not always reliable.

Moreover, history is also divided on who Shivaji wanted to succeed him as the ruler of the Maratha Empire. It wasn’t Sambhaji as a clear successor, as depicted in the movie, and there were bloody rebellions against him.

Such a ridiculous movie.

Note: I wrote a post on ‘1799’ about a year ago. Can be found easily on the website of the page. Do read that too because that year holds a lot of significance in human history from America to Europe to South Asia. Other than the year 1453.

One of the most happening years in human history was the year ‘1799’.

That was the time when French Revolution ended even though King Louis XVI and Queen Marie Antoinette were murdered in 1793 and Maximilian Robespierre – one of the architects of the revolution – was killed in 1794. The revolution was against the House of Burbon and took no mercy on any ‘traitor’.

Napoleon Bonaparte took over in 1799 through a coup d’état and ruled till 1814. French Revolution ended up with a jump from one monarchy to another. But that was not just that. It was also the foundation of feminism and women rights apart from democracy, freedom, and equality.

Ironically, Napoleon’s monarchy ended with restoration of the House of Bourbon with Louis XVIII becoming the king again. Funny? He was thrown again in the July Revolution of 1830. Then came the Republic. Then came Napoleon III. Then Republic again. So, on and on. It was a century of all kinds of political seasons for French people.

That was a deviation. Now back to 1799.

Just when Napoleon was taking over France, Mysore was falling. Tipu Sultan was defeated and killed in 1799 in the Siege of Seringapatam by the East India Company. After Haider Ali, Tipu Sultan took over, but he was in consistent external threats from the beginning.

An English Governor General weakened the Mysore rule gradually with major and minor blows and through constraining the state. That Governor General was not finally able to defeat Tipu Sultan in the siege but that General was the one who did the damage. Will tell you about him in a bit.  

With the Fall of Mysore, the entire Subcontinent was taken over by Britain – except one region.

General Lord Cornwallis took the final blow of defeat in America in 1781. He surrendered in Yorktown to George Washington. American foundation was completed after 5 years to July 4^th, 1776. That same general went back to England. He served in other countries and was finally sent to India.

And that was the same Governor General Lord Cornwallis of Bengal who weakened Tipu Sultan over the years. See! How history is connected. From America to England to the Tiger of Mysore.

Well, back to 1799.

After Mysore, the entire Subcontinent was under Britain. Except Punjab.

Sikhs had a strong force of powerful men. In the west were Pathans and in the East were English. But Sikhs didn’t succumb to any of them. In 1799, Ranjit Singh captured Lahore and became the Maharaja of Punjab and Kashmir. The western boundary of his empire was almost exactly as today’s Durand Line. It’s not controversial really.

Ranjit Singh ruled for 40 years, and his rule is considered as one of the finest times in history of Punjab.

So, we have 1799 with Napoleon Bonaparte, Lord Cornwallis, Tipu Sultan and Ranjit Singh so far. George Washington died in 1799, so he does not matter.

Another interesting aspect behind all this is that if French Monarchy wouldn’t have been in trouble during the 1780s and 1790s, it was assumed that Tipu Sultan could have been rescued by the French against the English. But that did not happen as French were busy in their own internal mess.

Imagine, Napoleon Bonaparte coming all the way from France to Egypt (which he did) to Persia to India and finally to Mysore to stand with another tiger of his time. Two Tigers. Would have been a historical drama of its kind.

We think of world as a global city today with the internet, 24/7 news, televisions, social media and stuff. But it was not as isolated as you may think of. See, how cool was 1799 – though it was all about war and blood. No peace.

Almost forgot. If there wouldn’t have been Napoleon, there wouldn’t have been “War and Peace” of Leo Tolstoy. So, at least from literary point of view: the mess was justified.

Similarly, if England wouldn’t have been an island, they wouldn’t have made ships in such numbers. That would have led to less voyages. No voyages to the deep south and unseen world. No such adventures mean no Darwin on one of the voyages to the south of Latin America. Hence, no Theory of Evolution would have been there.

Or – for instance – if Constantinople wouldn’t have been conquered by Sultan Muhammad Fateh in 1453 and Byzantine Empire could have lived some more countries, then the land passage from Europe to Asia would have survived for Europeans.

In that case, ship industry and sea voyages wouldn’t have flourished; then Columbus wouldn’t have founded America in 1492 and natives of that land could have lived some more centuries without being annihilated.

And India wouldn’t have been taken over by sea route, but through land. Forces coming from the west. Passing through Afghanistan. And leading all the way to Lahore and Delhi. In that case, Calcutta and Bombay could have been villages for a very long time as these cities were developed by those foreigners who landed there back in those days of Mughal Empire. And Mughals were after all Mongols.

Enough!

Let this be “Concise History of the World: What Happened and What Could Have Happened”.

Let’s have some classic words’ resonance in our current times. For literary and educational purposes.

Orwellian times: when the internet is disrupted and social media sites are blocked. And the truth remains hidden.

Frankenstein’s monster: when your own creation goes against you.

1984: when you can’t speak what you want to say. When you can’t move as you want to move. When you can’t watch the truth on TV. And when you can be abducted for anything against the Big Brother.

Big Brother: the one who is watching your timelines and listening to your phone calls and making you a traitor.

Kafkaesque: when nothing makes sense even with Google and the whole world on your palm. When figuring out becomes as complex as this.

Catch-22: though it’s 2023 but the catch is amazing. Every rule is contradictory. You may destroy and kill and get 1000 per abuser. Or you may go to jail for the same. You may kill 444 and roam free while the other may go to jail for a tweet.

Faustian bargain: when a person deals with the ones he names and shames in past to get a seat in the capital. The ex did this bargain. The current did this bargain. The next will do the same.

Herculean: a task that cannot be done. Even with blood and bodies. Like moving the boys to the barracks.

Jekyll and Hyde: when everything is both black and white and you don’t know if you will agree with this same person the next moment or not. You may cherish him now and he may take a u-turn tomorrow. Leaving you with nothing but to denounce yourself.

Utopia & Dystopia: state media is presenting utopia. Some presenting dystopia. And 20 others shifting from one to other in the same bulletin.

Dickensian: here’s the catch-22. It’s neither utopia nor dystopia. It’s dickensian. With a cliche of ‘elite capture’.

Lastly, my favorite;

Fight club: when people come out at will with a happy agenda to burn the buildings and beat each other with consent and contest. The winner is the winner. The loser isn’t the loser because the fights never end. And you cannot talk about this at all.

London.

It’s the city of Orwell’s Animal Farm. Marx’s grave. Dickensian. Shakespeare’s plays. Mary Shelly’s Frankenstein. Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes. Oscar Wilde’s Dorian Gray. Tolkien’s Hobbit.

It’s also the city of Churchill. Margaret Thatcher. Newton. Florence Nightingale. Alexander Fleming.

It’s also the city of Judi Dench. Daniel-Day Lewis. And some other spectacular people on screen.

It’s also the city of V for Vendetta. When V decided to bomb Westminster Abbey and the Londoners cherished.

It’s also the city that played an integral part in Crusades. World Wars. And everything around bombs and bullets anywhere around the world. Including lies to be bombed in Iraq.

London it is. Living its moment of Ertugrul. Of the past that’s long gone. And lost. Like the Ottomans.

But London kept its royal bloodline. For the sake of a show. This show. And some Netflix stuff. And some mixing of royal sperms in unroyal wombs. To keep themselves in the news. Like today. A mockery.

Thorn. Crown. Glorious. Past. Faith. Mary of Magdalene. Jesus Christ. Hallelujah!

There are two extremes. On one side are apparent liberals and on the other side is everyone else. For last some days, some cruel comments on past figures are being thrown without seeing the historical norms of that time. But history isn’t as clueless as these commentators.

Aisha RA was born in 613 AD. Some say she was married at 9. Some mentioned 12. According to various other sources, she was 15. Some even point to 18.

In an article by Nilofar Ahmed (Dawn, 2012), who has done some extensive research on this topic, the age of Aisha RA is widely mispresented. Hisham is the narrator with Aisha RA married at 9-years of age. Many believe that his narrations are weak and not according to historical facts. Long story short, according to the findings of Nilofar Ahmed, Aisha RA was 18 when she got married, and moved with the Prophet PBUH at the age of 21.  You can read her article for more substance.

Even if not, the debate is useless. Because that was 14 centuries ago. The world was different. There was no 16-year education at that time. Not HEC for verification. No schools and colleges selling degrees. People used to get married early. Very early. Average life span was decades shorter than today.

By the way, do you know there was not a single woman alive at that time in New Zealand? Yes. Because it was not founded yet. Just giving you some substance for future idiotic theories.

Another idiotic content on the internet is regarding Jinnah’s marriage. He’s also being labeled with ugly words. Well, according to major sources, he married thrice, and all his wives were around 18 at the time of marriage. But again, those times were different. For example:

Gandhi’s wife was 14 at the time of marriage.

Nehru’s wife was 17.

Prem Chand’s wife was 11.

Rabindranath Tagore – the voice of women rights and writer of national anthems of India and Bangladesh – married when his wife was 10.

So? Should we burn all their words and books and their entire countries? No. You may disagree. But you should know the times were different. The whole human race didn’t move directly to 2020s with Harvard in the West and nothing in the East.

All those using words like “pedophiles” have biased hate for those they are labeling. Nothing more than that.

Almost forgot, next time you move your bum like Elvis Pressley, remember that he married Priscilla Presley when she was 14. But don’t bother. You may disagree and keep shaking your bums. At least bums don’t lie.

Aristotle believed that women were inferior to men. Same were the ideas of Rousseau and Schopenhauer. With complete disagreement with them on this, you cannot throw their rest of their works.

To be clear, one thing is certain that women have suffered for ages. Today’s roar for women rights and feminism definitely have substance. And such roar has taken turns to rationality, equality and modernism with time. Still, you can have disagreement at certain points and instances. But nothing can be dismissed as a whole. Not any historical personality. Not any philosophy.

Usual deviations. And trespasses.  

By the way, people also use right words for wrong reasons. Like philosophy of Nietzsche was used by his sister in collaboration with Nazi regime to support their brutal war on other races. They even used the idea of Nietzsche’s Übermensch for their Aryan race.

By the way, someone has overused this Übermensch so much that I am refraining from Nietzscheism these days. Remember those golden days when His Highness himself was Zarathustra? Forget it.  

Now a question of etiquette – as I pass, do I give you the ass or the crotch? As Zarathustra must leave now for another sermon in another village.

Before the arrival of Julius Caesar (born in 100 BC), Rome was a republic. It had a Consul, appointed by the Senate, who ran the country as a head. The Senate also had the power to remove the Consul anytime.

After defeat of Spartacus – a slave who rebelled against Rome – three military men emerged as victorious: Julius Caesar, Magnus Pompey, and Marcus Crassus. Only Caesar was without wealth among these three while the other two were arch rivals. Caesar made them an offer of alliance, gave his only daughter in marriage to Pompey and became a Consul of Rome.

Together these three made a ‘Triumvirate’ and ruled Rome for 7 years.

Caesar – as a Consul – used violent means to threaten Senators to pass legislations favoring Pompey and Crassus. Caesar became infamous and with him, the image of the other two had a falling too. So, the other two, who were arch rivals, decided to move a motion in Senate to remove Caesar as a Consul. One of the senators who was against Caesar was renowned philosopher Cicero.

Thus Caesar was removed as a Consul and was made Governor of Gaul (Northern Region of modern day France), which was always under threat of attacks from Gauls.

But Caesar had a plan.

He took his legions, made strategic plans, and gradually started to conquer Gaul. Gaul was considered a foreign land which couldn’t be conquered by Rome, but Caesar took it as an opportunity. In the next 4 years, Gaul was conquered and came under the rule of Rome.

And so came the time for Caesar to March to Rome with his legions. Pompey, along with Brutus and other senators, left Rome to gather an army to fight Caesar. Caesar, rather than moving towards Rome, went after Pompey and finally defeated his army and became emperor of Rome. But as Pompey fled to Egypt, Caesar moved after him after appointing his loyal soldier Mark Antony to take care of Rome.

In Egypt, Pompey was killed by Ptolemy – brother as well as husband of Cleopatra; who were in war of power. Caesar had an affair with Cleopatra. After stabilizing her rule in Egypt, he moved back to Rome. Together, they had a son named Caesarion who would later on become the last pharaoh of Egypt.

Back in Rome, Caesar made Rome an ‘Empire’ for the first time in centuries. He made new laws that made him more powerful, and kept the people happy with food, jobs, and gladiator games. He raised infrastructures. Education and record keeping were streamlined. Rome’s growth at that time was unprecedented. However, his aim of consolidating all powers to himself was haunting senators. He appointed himself Dictator of Rome for life in 44 BC.

But with Rome becoming an ‘empire’, the senators were not happy and hence they had a violent plan under a senator named Brutus. Yeah! Everyone knows Brutus. Caesar had a long affair with Brutus’s mother but that was not the reason for him to stab Caesar. Brutus had a vision and he aimed for Rome to be a republic rather than an empire.

Hence, in 44 BC, Caesar was stabbed 23 times and killed in the Senate by the senators. His final rule was from 49 BC to 44 BC – 5 years.

After Caesar’s death, Marc Antony went to Egypt and married Cleopatra. Their life story is adapted by Shakespeare in his famous play. Antony committed suicide when he wrongly heard about Cleopatra’s death. Cleopatra committed suicide after finding out.

The above mentioned history has different version as well. So, you may have read or heard things a little differently. I was actually fascinated by this story because of various reasons.

1. Big names. All the names mentioned above in the post are names we hear and read regularly, without actually knowing that they all existed together in the same era in the same empire. Julius Caesar, Pompey, Spartacus, Antony, Crassus, Cicero, Brutus, Cleopatra, Ptolemy; looks like a classic cast.
2. The fall. You can go north and south and down to the oceans and conquer everything. But then you are stabbed in broad daylight in the very citadel of the Senate you owned and ruled. Your own palace becoming your own graveyard.
3. How much to attain? After decades of war and risking his life, he almost had no son – a long story of no heir – and had no peace. His consistent struggles gave him fits and he reigned for a mere couple of years in the end.
4. How great was Rome? It had a democracy and Senate long before the Christ. It had a system of irrigation, education, record-keeping, voting, legislation, philosophy, etc. Unfortunately, we couldn’t learn from the great minds of the past.
5. Where are we? We still have a combination of all the bad things. We have outdated laws from the colonial era. We have an outdated bureaucracy system for appointing the least capable men on the top posts. We have a Senate which can be brought at any moment. We have a military regime in the modern world. We have voting issues. We have bad laws and worse interpretations of laws. In a nutshell, we have a democracy which is not a democracy.