On Versions of History

I am wading into one of the most fierce ongoing debates. It is about shrinking the space occupied by the Mughals in the history textbooks, which, the so-called seculars and liberals think is unfair to the legacy of the Great(?) Mughals. However the other view is that the space hitherto occupied by them is disproportionately large, overtly glorified and embellished with a lot of fiction.

Let us examine some of the facts. The 'glorious' period of the Moghul empire - between Babur's arrival in 1526 and Aurangzeb's death in 1707 - is 181 years and it occupies nearly 1/3 of history textbooks. The peak period of the Gupta dynasty was between 319 to 477 CE, 158 years and it is wound up in one chapter by historians like Romila Thapar. 

The admirers of the Mughals talk passionately about the Taj Mahal and Red Fort but would never dare discuss the destruction of the traditional architecture of India - the Kashi Vishwanath temple, the Ram Janmbhoomi temple and Krishna Janmbhoomi temple. 

They also never tell that the most valuable literature in North India was created not with the support of the Mughal court, but in spite of them. Tulsidas, Surdas, Mirabai and Kabir never got any royal support or patronage whereas the Gupta courts actively promoted the likes of Aryabhatta and Kalidas.

A certain Shashi Tharoor has given a very funny logic that Mughals were 'Indian' because more than half of the Mughal princes were born to Indian mothers. Dear Tharoor, why are you rubbing salt into the wounds of a hurt psyche? Can you give one, only one, example of a Mughal shahzadi being given to an Indian family in marriage?

Furthermore, why the obsession that the history of India is only the history of monarchies in and around Delhi? How much space do you give to the Vijaynagar Empire, its economy and socio-cultural richness? In fact , I don't remember if Odisha and the North Eastern parts of India get any coverage during the Mughal era.

And why only the Mughal period? Even before that period the history of the southern India never got proportionate coverage. How many students of history have in depth knowledge of Cher-Pandya-Chola? How many know that more than 2000 years ago a certain Ilangovan created a classic called "Shillapadikaram" which should be ranked alongside the best literature created in the subcontinent? Mir and Ghalib were great poets but there were better and greater poets.

The fact remains that the history of India has been written more like fiction (like Nehru's Discovery of India) rather than History.

Akbar and Bharmal, a Mughal emperor and a Rajput king, between themselves stitch up a political treaty whereby the later "gives away" his daughter to the former. The poor girl, raised in Rajput customs and traditions, goes into a household with unfamiliar culture and food habits. She finds herself in a very large harem of women acquired through a large variety of formal and informal marriages. And the fools create romantic concoctions around this story. No feminist cries foul that Akbar, a party to this treaty, was anything but great.

*Akbar the 'Great':* The oft-quoted icon of the composite culture. We can try to sift what has been presented from what really happened.

The siege of Chittorgarh (1567–1568) when Akbar was already married to Harka Bai. So it's not like Asoka's invasion of Kalinga that happened soon after Asoka's coronation. The 'secularisation' of Akbar had already happened in 1562 when, through a treaty with Aamer, he married Harka Bai (filmi name Jodha Bai).

It is documented in the contemporary sources that Akbar gave a religious colour to the struggle by declaring it as a Jihād against the infidels. After the conquest of the fort, Akbar ordered a general massacre of Chittor's population in the course of which 30,000 Hindu civilians were slaughtered and a large number of women and children were enslaved.

He also issued a victory letter on 9 March 1568 where he addressed his governors of Punjab about the campaign (quoted by Andre Wink):

"We, as far as it is within our power, remain busy in Jihad and owing to the kindness of the superior Lord, who is the promoter of our victories, we have succeeded in occupying a number of forts and towns belonging to the infidels and have established Islam there. With the help of our bloodthirsty sword we have erased the signs of infidelity from their minds and have destroyed temples in those places and also all over Hindustan."

Do we know that Akbar was created as "Akbar the Great" as a parallel to Ashoka the great? And, mind you, Ashoka was not created by a JNU bunch and a Nehru. Ashoka's name was lost to history until he was identified by the British scholar and orientalist James Prinsep (l. 1799-1840 CE) in 1837 CE. After reading Ashoka's inscriptions, and being amazed by the contents thereof, Prinsep accorded the status of "Great" to Ashoka.

Lest misunderstood, let me confess that Nehru's Discovery of India is a great writing. I dare not contest that. But does it pass for 'History'? I concede that Pt Nehru's account is not altogether fictional, but he certainly did not carry out any research to form opinions and derive conclusions. Pt Nehru has derived conclusions of his choice. Had he accessed any primary sources? There is no evidence. Did he have knowledge of historiography? Certainly not. I am giving an example of another book, "Aag Ka Daria" by Qurtlain Haider. In her book she has traced the evolution of Indian culture from the 6th century BC till her own times, the twentieth century. Maybe purely my personal view, but her book, categorised as 'fiction', is less opinionated about different phases. So, my view about the book by Nehru is that it may not be fiction, but it is not history either. Nehru was a very learned person, he has written a great book, but he was not a historian.

When historians like Prinsep and Vincent Smith wrote, before picking up the pen they had carried out extensive research of the primary sources, the scriptures in the case of the history of ancient India. Even our own historians of the first generation, scholars like DR Bhandarkar, RK Mukherjee and RC Majumdar have all supported their theories with intensive study of primary sources. Till date, to my mind, the least opinionated book on mediaeval history is by Iswari Prasad. Unfortunately, their works got systematically marginalized to promote the 'desirable' version written by the likes of Romila Thapar, Irfan Habib and Bipin Chandra.

The greatest disservice to our collective psyche has been to present a 'desirable' history. Unfortunately, we don't have a supply of the likes of Majumdar and Roychaudhary. My worry is who will pick up the threads from where they left? 

We are living in an era of intellectual fraudsters.  There is one Ramchandra Guha who carries the tag of a historian. His academic credentials? He graduated from St. Stephen's College, Delhi with a bachelor's degree in economics in 1977, and completed his master's in economics from the Delhi School of Economics. He then enrolled at the Indian Institute of Management Calcutta, where he earned a Ph.D. in Sociology, focusing on history and prehistory of the Chipko movement.

Historical blunders have to be corrected.

Method in Trump's Madness

Without doubt Donald Trump has been the most talked about person since he commenced his second term as the President of the USA. Being the most powerful country in the world the US always gets extra attention and some of it is also reflected on the individual heading the country. But in the case of Trump it has been more about the person.

His campaign was constructed around MAGA (Make America Great Again) theme and for the first few months it appeared that this greatness would be achieved through imposing punishing tariffs. The earliest heavy tariff was announced against China which was first deferred and then kept in abeyance. The apparent reason was USA's heavy dependence on the rare earth minerals supplied by China. However, Trump did impose heavy tariff on various other countries including India, Brazil and South Africa. India was chosen for a special treatment with 25% penal tariff for purchasing oil from Russia.

These tariffs showed an obvious inconsistency and double speak because the USA and Europe make a lot of purchase from Russia. The U.S. continues to import key goods from Russia, primarily fertilizers, precious metals (like palladium, platinum), and inorganic chemicals, despite sanctions, with these commodities dominating trade, alongside uranium (under waiver). The EU buys huge amount of energy from Russia and is heavily dependent on that.

While the tariff tool was being applied, the USA continued with other methods to harass India. Support to Pakistan has been a favourite and time tested tool of the West. There appeared to be a pause over the last twenty five years. However, they are now leaning back on Pakistan. With its economy in shambles, Pakistan is ever willing to comply.  Besides, the USA openly or covertly engineered unrest and regime changes in the neighbouring countries like Nepal and Bangladesh. All this to surround India with a hostile neighbourhood.

And there was, also, a China specific strategy. Its move into Pakistan will certainly weaken the Chinese influence in the country where China is heavily invested. Occupation of Venezuela is the first direct military intervention aimed at hurting China. 

Do we see a method in this madness?

China's bargaining chip was its rare earth minerals. USA is trying to choke China's oil supply. China is the biggest importer of oil.

Venezuela has been seized.

Iran, it appears, is close to regime change. And the next regime would be compliant to the Americans. Columbia could be the next. The other oil producers of the Middle East are already under the American net.

It may be bad news for China but not good for the rest of the world either.

What will happen to BRICS? USA is determined to protect its petro dollar hegemony.

We may or may not like it but we are living in a unipolar world. I have never believed in the military might of China and, now, it's unlikely that China would confront the USA militarily.

Many of us choose to write off Trump as 'insane'. But if we carefully examine what he has been doing, we can notice a much larger objective. 

How did the US achieve the hegemonic position?

- Post WW-ll it moved quickly to seize the opportunities. Europe, realising that the Soviet Union had raised an "iron curtain", was feeling a security threat, particularly in view of the partition of Germany. The US moved in to help the Western European countries rebuild their war torn economies. It extended a $1.3 billion aid under the Marshall Plan. 

- On the defence front, NATO was formed as a collective defence system. In the process of operationalizing NATO, the US has its military bases across Europe, focusing heavily on Germany, Italy, the UK, and Spain. With the eastward expansion of NATO after the collapse of the USSR it has built bases in Poland and Romania. So, it knows that the EU and UK are captive for its designs. If one ever had any doubt, the open threat to 'snatch' Greenland from Denmark demonstrates how helpless Europe is in front of the USA.

- Besides, realising that the future of the world was going to be tied with oil, the USA created a pivotal role for itself and its currency by introducing the petro dollar system. 

How does this strengthen the USA and its economy?

Oil-exporting nations agreed to price their oil in U.S. dollars. 

Dollar Demand: Countries needing oil must first acquire U.S. dollars, creating a steady global demand for the currency.

Petrodollar Recycling: Oil-rich nations earn vast amounts of U.S. dollars (petrodollars) and often reinvest these funds into U.S. financial assets, like Treasury bonds, a process called petrodollar recycling.

So, there are multiple benefits that the USA has been reaping. Can it afford to let it go through a formation like BRICS?

But, the petro dollar system was not created without political and military back-up. The oil rich countries of the Middle East also outsourced their defence to the USA and, like Europe, the USA has its bases across the Arab World. These include Qatar (Al Udeid AB), Kuwait (Camp Arifjan, Ali Al Salem AB), UAE (Al Dhafra AB), Bahrain (NSA Bahrain - 5th Fleet HQ), Saudi Arabia (Prince Sultan AB), Jordan (Muwaffaq Salti AB), and smaller presences in Iraq (Al Asad, Erbil) and Syria (Tanf Garrison).

Let us visualise the situation. America has its hold over the oil reserves of Venezuela and Iran could be the next, through a regime change. The middle east is already a captive territory.

Middle East holds the largest share of proven oil reserves (around 50%), followed by regions with substantial reserves in Venezuela (around 25%), Saudi Arabia, Canada, Iran, and Iraq. The combined oil reserves of Venezuela and Iran are 512 billion barrels.

Theoretically BRICS sounds good, but what is left of the oil reserves? Russia has around 80 billion barrels. Canada, with large reserves, cannot align itself with those against the USA.

Tough days ahead for the world, and, particularly, India. Can the world unite to thwart this new version of imperialism?

Trump's Tantrums - Theatre of Absurd

Theatre of Absurd

Pioneered by European playwrights like Beckett, Ionesco, and Pinter, this art form has got a new exponent in (Mc)Donald Trump. And the absurdity is illogical and extreme.

Disrespect is his new diplomatic tool, and he spares no one. He rebuked Zelensky, he mocked Macron and humiliated Kier Starmer. They are all his 'subjects'. 

But now he has tried to land a blow on the Indian PM.

The Apache helicopters reference shows how this theatre works. Trump recalls Modi supposedly saying, ‘Sir, may I see you, please?’ Anyone who has watched Modi in bilateral settings knows this is not his register. He has always been Formal, 'Mr PM', 'Mr President', 'Your Excellency', as the protocol demands. But Modi being 'deferential'? No, that is unimaginable. Here is someone who has risen through the rigours of public life of half a century. He knows the ground he stands on. The phrasing sounds less like Modi and more like Trump’s familiar storytelling habit, where other leaders appear as supplicants and he plays the towering boss.

This ‘Sir’ routine is a well-worn Trump device. He has used it with allies and adversaries alike. It elevates him in the story and shrinks everyone else. The anecdote does not have to be accurate. It only has to reinforce the hierarchy Trump wants his audience to see.

But the factual inaccuracies make his statements fall flat. Trump speaks of 68 Apaches and five-year delays. India ordered 28. Twenty-two were delivered to the Air Force years ago. Only the later Army batch ran into delays. It is selective exaggeration.

Was it an innocent mix up or a deliberate exaggeration? It might be a deliberate exaggeration. Because scale creates grievance. Sixty-eight helicopters waiting five years sounds like injury. Twenty-eight across two deals, mostly delivered on time, does not. 

Which brings up the question: Why does Modi not respond? I would ask: Why should he? 

Trump is not arguing. He is creating an imaginary aura. Why should we give a body and a form to something that is imaginary? Narcissists, like Trump, thrive on reaction, which they interpret as acknowledgement. Silence denies it. It denies them the oxygen to survive.

There is also a deeper asymmetry at play here. 

Trump responds warmly to those who flatter him, like Asim Munir. When Trump praises Pakistan’s self-styled Field Marshal, it fits the pattern.  But the logic is simple. Munir needs American goodwill, so he offers admiration. And Trump reciprocates.

India sits in a different category. It trades with the US on a transactional basis. It cooperates where interests align and resists where they do not. India thwarts, successfully, the USA's attempts to enter its agriculture and dairy sectors. Modi does not need American approval to legitimise his leadership at home. That independence irritates Trump. Modi is not waiting for validation because he has not usurped the power, like Shahbaz Sharif, through manipulation which needs sustenance from a super power. Modi's position is validated by a mandate, a support from allies and the inherent strength of the Indian constitution.

This is why Trump keeps poking. He invariably either prefixes or suffixes his provocative statements with "Modi is a good man", almost like a refrain. The aim is not policy correction alone, it is psychological repositioning, seeking to get Modi, and India, on knees.

For India, responding emotionally would be a mistake. A sharp rebuttal might satisfy domestic audiences for a day, but it would feed Trump’s narcissistic ego. A mature  silence denies him the confrontation he seeks and allows India to absorb noise while negotiating substances elsewhere.

Venezuela and Threats to Sovereignty

My grandfather used to say, "A weak person's wealth is the most endangered thing." (कमज़ोर का धन खतरा ए जान) Venezuela has oil but it didn't have the strength to protect it. The international referee, the UNO, is a toothless tiger that has neither the strength nor the desire to act. So, each one on their own. Defend yourself lest a bully humiliates you.

I have seen some people - however small in number - feeling happy that a dictator has been vanquished. There was a similar jubilation in some quarters after the fall of Saddam Hussein. If we go by the Western narrative there are many dictatorships in the world, with Russia topping the list. But they had no qualms in dealing with Zia ul Haq or Parvez Musharraf. There is an Urdu couplet:

उस के क़त्ल पे मैं भी चुप था मेरा नम्बर अब आया

मेरे क़त्ल पे आप भी चुप है अगला नम्बर आपका है

Loosely translated, it means, " When he was getting killed, I kept silent; now, you, watching silently as I am being killed, could be the next."

So, who knows who will be the next target?

Here, in India, a former Chief Minister, Prithviraj Chavan, hit a new low when he discussed the possibility of the USA kidnapping our PM as it did in Venezuela. 

However, the way the USA has treated Venezuela, or, in the past, Iraq, it's worth considering how to protect the sovereignty of a nation when the UNO has become a caricature.

To start with, let me share a famous quote of Henry Kissinger, the former Secretary of State of the US:

 "To be an enemy of America is dangerous, but to be a friend is fatal."

So, let us examine the cases of the friends first. When Tony Blair was the British PM, a section of the British media used to sarcastically call him "a poodle of George Bush" for blindly obeying Bush on every issue, particularly parroting his rhetoric that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction.

Europe is completely dependent on NATO, led by the US. And let’s be honest: NATO IS the U.S. Europe has outsourced its sovereignty — and is now powerless and helpless. Just see how helpless they are about Ukraine, as Trump is charting a separate path, not consistent with its initial stand, after pushing Ukraine into a disastrous war with Russia.

Japan is another example of a friend country which is only theoretically sovereign, or has encumbered sovereignty. It was demilitarised after WW II,  with a protection assurance though a treaty and reconstruction assurance under the Marshall Plan. The country with the most U.S. military bases on earth is not “protected” — it is occupied by a treaty.

Russia survived relentless U.S. attacks because it invested in defence — not narratives, not alliances, not “values". Its economy was too small when compared with the US, but it's defence capabilities were a complete maych. Similarly, China has fortified itself by strengthening both it's economy and its defence.

So. I would rephrase Kissinger's quotation:

If you are not a friend (not necessarily an enemy) of the USA, strengthen yourself. If you are a friend, you are in a hopeless situation.

Now, the critical question: what should India do? In my view, there are two points 

1. Build our own defence system and our own military power which is not heavily dependent on the supplies or technology from the neo-imperialists. Do not outsource security to white supremacist power blocs. I think India has realised the importance of indigenous defence capability.

2. Do not confuse partnership with submission. All the defence offers from the US have hidden traps. Besides, we have observed that what it supplied to India at a cost, was given to Pakistan as aid.

Sovereignty is defended — not gifted. You have to defend your sovereignty yourself.

Demonetisation: The Causes and the effect

When facts and fiction get intertwined – the known unknowns and the unknown unknowns*

The sudden announcement by the Prime Minister on 8th November 2016, that 500 and 1000 currency notes were being discontinued, took the nation, and the world, by surprise. Certainly such a momentous decision would not have been taken on the spur of a moment. A very serious and well thought out strategy would have gone into it. 

Expectedly, the entire opposition and its aligned ecosystem sprang in a loud and noisy confrontation. But the PM, with his strong goodwill among the masses, remained undeterred and his popularity remained intact. 

However, as nearly all of the currency in official circulation returned back to RBI, even the PM’s supporters started questioning the outcome of the move which had caused a lot of pain to the masses.

But now, nine years after it was done, the demonetisation is back in discussion. A recently released movie, “Dhurandhar” has highlighted that, due to some loopholes in the system, ISI backed fake-note factories were churning out “near-perfect” rupees, funding terror and hurting the Indian economy. You may call it ‘economic jihad’ if you wish.

We can agree with the movie that the fake currency made its way to India through Dubai and Nepal, both considered as safe havens for the underworld and their outlawed activities.

However, the film, being a film, has made insinuations which I don’t agree with. It’s too far fetched to imagine that anyone, even the PM, can breach the multi-layered security and make the currency printing plates available to the fake currency printers in Pakistan. If the Pakistanis were able to do it, there might be some other source.

But some breach did happen. What was that? A report that appeared in The Indian Express on 14 January 2023 said, “The CBI has registered an FIR against former finance secretary Arvind Mayaram for alleged cheating, criminal conspiracy, and corruption. Mayaram, whose premises in Delhi and Jaipur were searched on Thursday, is accused of extending undue favours to the UK-based company De La Rue by giving a three-year extension to its “expired contract” for supply of exclusive colour shift security thread for Indian currency notes when he was finance secretary.”

What is the De La Rue case?

De La Rue is a British firm, now listed on the London Stock Exchange, which designs and prints currency notes and produces other features used in banknotes like security thread and security holograms for central banks across the world. It was contracted to supply the currency notes printing material to India.

It was in 2010 that De La Rue was embroiled in its first commercial controversy in India, and was subsequently denied security clearance by the Home Ministry for currency paper contracts.

Then finance minister Pranab Mukherjee had ordered an inquiry into the faulty currency paper supplies. Towards the end of 2010, he approved a proposal to suspend supplies from De La Rue. And thus the company was blacklisted.

However, when Chidambaram returned as Finance Minister (31 July 2012 – 26 May 2014), De La Rue was reinstated as the supplier even though, allegedly, no fresh contract was signed. And that forms the basis of the FIR against Arvind Mayaram who had placed the order as the Finance Secretary. We don’t have anything to conclude whether it was business expediency or any foul play was involved.

But in 2016 the name of De La Rue appeared in the Panama Papers with evidence that it had authorised a payment of a 15% commission via its subsidiary company, Portals, to its Indian agent for securing banknote contracts.

After the publication of the Panama Papers, the RBI had advised the Home Ministry to continue the blacklisting of De La Rue.

Connecting the dots

Now, let us look at the events that took place in 2016:

- De La Rue’s foul play got exposed in the Panama Papers.

- The infamous Karachi based Khanani brothers, Javed Khanani and Altaf Khanani, money launderers who were involved in moving money for terrorist groups and criminal gang groups, got exposed. They were also said to be involved in printing fake Indian currency with the backing of ISI, which was peddled into India through Dubai and Nepal.

- Altaf Khanani was arrested in September 2016 in Panama by the US Drug Enforcement Administration, and transported to jail in the United States. He pleaded guilty of money laundering only. After serving three years in prison he was released in July 2020

- Javed Khanani, his brother committed suicide.

- Their front company, Khanani & Kalia International (KKI) was a foreign exchange company that operated until November 2017, when it was closed down by the Government of Pakistan for being involved in money laundering.

- While all this was happening, the Government of India moved to discontinue its currency notes of 500 and 1000.

Now, we can connect the dots and understand the full context of the 2016 demonetisation.

Several things have happened after that. India has moved very rapidly towards digital transactions which has significantly reduced the creation of black money in the domestic system. But, more importantly, the move broke the back of the notorious counterfeit peddling infrastructure of Pakistan and ISI which straightaway affected the funding of the Pakistan based terror groups. So, even if the genuine currency, even the black money, made its way back to RBI, we should feel happy that it was a very successful move from the point of view of national security.

That explains, to a great extent, the unrest among the ‘ecosystem’ with the movie Dhurandhar.

Revisiting the Bangladesh Story

 हमने क्या खोया, हमने क्या पाया? Is it the time to revisit our success story of creating Bangladesh? 

.............................

Our books on India's freedom struggle, particularly the one published by the National Book Trust and authored by Bipan Chandra, Amlesh Tripathi and Barun De, would argue against the two nations theory that religion could not be the basis of nationhood.

They would support this argument by quoting the example of Bangladesh, which broke out of Pakistan in spite of both being Muslim majority countries. Well, even without the formation of Bangladesh there were too many Islamic countries. So, the point could have been illustrated even without quoting the example of Bangladesh. There are things beyond the territorial boundaries of a nation state. How did the word 'Christendom' originate? It defined the entire Christian population as one brotherhood. Does the Pope not enjoy the authority over the Catholics all over the world?What was the authority of the "Khalifa"? Who would a Muslim obey if there was a conflict between the nation state and the Caliph's decree?

So, territorial boundaries apart, there have been supranational authorities based on faith. The very concept of "Ummaah", meaning the whole community of Muslims is bound together by ties of religion, is supranational.

So, do we need to revisit the outcome of the 1971 war through which we 'liberated' Bangladesh? We have been thinking all along that breaking up Pakistan was a huge achievement and that we have created a nation which will remain perennially indebted to us for its creation. But the most recent Bangladesh creation day, Vijay Divas for India, showed that the Bangladeshis are an ungrateful lot. Many videos suggested that instead of thanking India they were throwing scorn and abuses only. 

Why did we expect otherwise? A fiercely secular republic established by Kemal Pasha Ataturk was turned on its head by Recep Tyep Erdogan to become another Islamist country. So, almost certainly, a secular republic in a Muslim majority country is a utopia. Bangladesh has only reaffirmed it.

We, as a nation, have been gloating over the disintegration of Pakistan. But what is our gain from their loss? 

Nothing much, it seems. Through the Simla agreement it was agreed that India and Pakistan would "settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations". India thought that this would make the contentious PoK issue a bilateral matter, but Pakistan has not agreed to it and has been trying to internationalise the matter from time to time. Apart from this we returned 93,000 prisoners of war without securing any releases from Pakistan. So, as it appears, instead of one hostile Islamist country on both sides, we are having two hostile Islamist countries on our two sides. And a huge number of infiltrators is a bonus.

P.S.: I request my friends not to view this post as a criticism of the then government or PM. The 1971 war is a point of general consensus among Indians.

काशी के कंकड़ शिव शंकर समान हैं

 काशी के कंकड़ शिव शंकर समान हैं

यह वाक्य भारतेन्दु हरिश्चन्द्र के एक लेख से लिया गया है। पुराने काशी वासी अक्सर इसका उल्लेख किया करते थे। इस एक वाक्य में काशी की सांस्कृतिक विरासत को समाहित किया जाता था।

मुझे यह वाक्य क्यों याद आया और मैं यह लेख क्यों लिख रहा हूँ? दरअसल पिछले एक दशक में काशी का बहुत ‘विकास’ हुआ है। इसके उदाहरण जगह जगह देखने को मिलते हैं। सड़कें चौड़ी हो गई हैं, जगह जगह फ्लाईओवर बन गए हैं, घाटों का जबर्दस्त सुंदरीकरण हो गया है, विश्वनाथ मंदिर के परिसर का विस्तार और सुंदरीकरण हो गया है। और भी बहुत कुछ है। 2014 से यह देश के प्रधानमंत्री का चुनाव क्षेत्र है, इसलिए वी आई पी कांस्टीट्यूएंसी है। निस्संदेह “ease of living” के नजरिए काशी ने अप्रतिम प्रगति की है और इस पर हर किसी को खुश होना चाहिए।

लेकिन “काशी” क्या एक शहर मात्र है? पता नहीं क्यों मुझे लगता है कि विकास की परतों के नीचे इस शहर की संस्कृति की अद्वितीयता दब सी गई है।

मेरे जैसों के लिए काशी मात्र एक शहर कभी नहीं रहा, यह एक जीवन्त चरित्र, एक “organism” रहा है। और यही काशी को काशी बनाता है, जो किसी अन्य शहर, मसलन चंडीगढ़, गाजियाबाद, मेरठ, बरेली से भिन्न है।

अब फिर आते हैं भारतेन्दु के वाक्य पर। हर मुहल्ले, हर घाट के पीछे एक इतिहास है। लहुराबीर नाम कैसे पड़ा? चेतगंज नाम कैसे पड़ा? गायघाट क्यों कहा गया? पुरानी पीढ़ी के लोग हर स्थान की कहानी जानते थे जो किसी स्थान देवता या किसी जननायक से जुड़ी होती थी। और इसी से जुड़े होते थे पारम्परिक धार्मिक अनुष्ठान और उत्सव। तुलसीघाट की नाग नथैया, चेतगंज की नक्कटैया, नाटी इमली का भरत मिलाप, सावन में दाताराम नागर से जुड़ी कजरी और जलेबा वगैरह। पता नहीं क्यों मुझे लगता है कि हम “क्या पाया” पर तो ध्यान देते हैं, लेकिन “क्या खोया” कि चर्चा नहीं होती।

मैं राजघाट / प्रह्लाद घाट में रहा हूं और भैरोनाथ, विशेश्वर गंज, मैदागिन, बड़ा गणेश और दारानगर जैसे मोहल्लों के आस पास बड़ा हुआ हूं। मैं प्रह्लाद घाट से जुड़ी, और अब प्रायः लुप्त हो चुकी, परम्परा का ज़िक्र करना चाहता हूं।

प्रह्लादघाट पर गंगा तट पर हर साल दो दिनों की नृसिंह लीला हुआ करती थी। जो वैशाख के शुक्ल पक्ष की त्रयोदशी को शुरू होती थी और चतुर्दशी को नृसिंह जयंती को खंभा फटने के साथ संपन्न होती थी। होने को यह अब भी होती है, दो दिन के स्थान पर एक दिन। लेकिन इसमें रुचि कुछ परिवारों तक सीमित है और पैट्रोनेज के अभाव में यह सिमट गई है। प्रह्लाद घाट की सीढ़ियों के ऊपर भगवान नृसिंह का एक मन्दिर भी है जो प्रायः उपेक्षित रहता है।

(२)

काशी की कहानी में एक वर्ग था काशी के गुंडों का। समय के साथ प्रचलित रूप में यह शब्द सिर्फ़ नकारात्मक आभास ही कराता है। और अंग्रेज़ी में अगर इसके समानार्थी ढूंढेंगे तो “goon”, “gangster” और “rascal” जैसे शब्द ही मिलेंगे।

किसी बाहर वाले के लिए यह मानना कठिन होगा कि काशी के गुंडों में हीरोइज़्म की एक परम्परा थी। यह एक ऐसा वर्ग था जो अन्याय और अराजकता की प्रतिक्रिया स्वरूप बागी हो जाता था। जय शंकर प्रसाद की कहानी “गुंडा” कुछ यूं कहती है:

“गौतम बुद्ध और शंकराचार्य के धर्मदर्शन के वादविवाद, कई शताब्दियों से लगातार मंदिरों और मठों के ध्वंस और तपस्वियों के वध के कारण, प्राय: बन्दसे हो गये थे। यहाँ तक कि पवित्रता और छुआछूत में कट्टर वैष्णवधर्म भी उस विशृंखलता में, नवागन्तुक धर्मोन्माद में अपनी असफलता देखकर काशी में अघोर रूप धारण कर रहा था। उसी समय समस्त न्याय और बुद्धिवाद को शस्त्रबल के सामने झुकते देखकर, काशी के विच्छिन्न और निराश नागरिक जीवन ने, एक नवीन सम्प्रदाय की सृष्टि की। वीरता जिसका धर्म था। अपनी बात पर मिटना, सिंहवृत्ति से जीविका ग्रहण करना, प्राणभिक्षा माँगनेवाले कायरों तथा चोट खाकर गिरे हुए प्रतिद्वन्द्वी पर शस्त्र न उठाना, सताये निर्बलों को सहायता देना और प्रत्येक क्षण प्राणों को हथेली पर लिये घूमना, उसका बाना था। उन्हें लोग काशी में गुंडा कहते थे।“

प्रसाद की कहानी के नायक नन्हकू सिंह तो साहित्यकार द्वारा रचे गए पात्र थे। किन्तु शिव प्रसाद मिश्र “रुद्र काशिकेय” ने अपनी कालजई कृति “बहती गंगा” में अठारहवीं और उन्नीसवीं सदी की काशी के दो वास्तविक चरित्रों, दो गुंडों, दाताराम नागर और भंगड़ भिक्षुक, को नायक के रूप में रखकर लिखा है।

बहुत कम लोगों को पता होगा कि काशी की एक परम्परागत कजरी (श्रावण मास में गाया जाने वाला लोक गीत) , जो लगभग दो सदी पुरानी है, दाताराम नागर को कालेपानी की सज़ा होने पर उनकी रक्षिता गौनहारिन सुन्दर ने गाई थी। तिथि थी श्रवण के कृष्ण पक्ष की नवमी (वर्ष पक्का नहीं पता) जब नागर को कालेपानी के लिए नाव में बैठाया गया।

(३)

काशी पर बहुत कुछ लिखा गया है। स्कंद पुराण और शिव पुराण दोनों में ही काशी खण्ड है। लेकिन अगर बात आधुनिक लेखन की हो तो मैं दो लेखकों का खास तौर पर ज़िक्र करना चाहूंगा। संयोगवश दोनों ने ही काशी हिन्दू विश्वविद्यालय के हिन्दी विभाग में अध्यापन किया था और कुछ काल के लिये सहकर्मी भी रहे। ये थे पंडित शिव प्रसाद मिश्र ‘रुद्र काशिकेय’ और डॉक्टर शिव प्रसाद सिंह। डॉक्टर सिंह ने काशी पर एक त्रयी (trilogy) लिखी है: ‘वैश्वानर’, ‘नीला चांद’ और ‘गली आगे मुड़ती है’। रुद्र काशिकेय ने एक ही कालजयी पुस्तक लिखी है ‘बहती गंगा’। रुद्र काशिकेय के लिए ‘बहती गंगा’ उसी तरह है जैसे चंद्रधर शर्मा गुलेरी के लिए ‘उसने कहा था’।

दाताराम नागर का चरित्र ‘बहती गंगा’ के एक अध्याय “नागर नैया जाला काले पनिया रे हरी” का नायक है। मेरा अपने मित्रों से निवेदन है कि यदि आप अठारहवीं सदी के उत्तरार्ध से लेकर बीसवीं सदी के मध्य तक लगभग दो सौ वर्षों के काशी के सामाजिक विकास को समझना चाहते हैं तो यह पुस्तक अवश्य पढ़नी चाहिए। इस पुस्तक का पहला संस्करण 1951 में प्रकाशित हुआ था। इसके प्राक्कथन में श्री सीताराम चतुर्वेदी ने लिखा है:

“बहती गंगा ऐतिहासिक उपन्यास है, जिसमें पिछले दो सौ वर्षों की काशी के मस्तीमय जीवन का सरस विश्लेषण है, जिसके पात्र वास्तविक हैं और जो अपने वास्तविक जीवन में कल्पना को परारुत कर देने वाली घटनाओं की सृष्टि करके उसके सजीव, सक्रिय, अलौकिक, कौतूहल पूर्ण नट बनकर स्वयं उपन्यास का अवतार बनकर जी गए हैं, मर गए हैं; जिनके पौरुष की गाथा पढ़कर आश्चर्य होता है, श्रद्धा होती है और गर्व होता है”

“इस उपन्यास के स्रष्टा पं० शिवप्रसाद मिश्र ‘रुद्र’ इतिहास और हिन्दी साहित्य के तो विलक्षण पंडित हैं ही, साथ ही वे बनारसी जीवन के साक्षात अवतार हैं। काशी का जीवन क्या है और क्‍या रहा है इसे वे जिस सूक्ष्मता के साथ जानते हैं उतना पढ़े-लिखे लोगों में कदाचित्‌ कोई विरला ही जानता हो। उनके उपन्यास में जो सजीवता है उसका कारण यही है कि उन्होंने बलपूर्वक पात्रों को कल्पना करके उन्हें कृत्रिम रंगों से रंगकर आदर्श बनाने का आडम्बर वहीं किया और यही कारण है कि उनका उपन्यास एक नया जीवन और हिन्दी के गौरवमय इतिहास का एक नवीन ज्योतिमय पृष्ठ खोलकर अवतरित हुआ है।“

मेरा आलेख थोड़ा लंबा होता जा रहा है। इसलिए दाताराम नागर पर लौटते हैं। दाताराम नागर कोई काल्पनिक चरित्र (fictional character) नहीं हैं। इनके नाम से जिस कजरी की टेक “नागर नैया जाला काले पनिया रे हरी” है वह दो सौ वर्षों से काशी की परम्परा का हिस्सा बनी हुई है।

वारेन हेस्टिंग्स द्वारा काशी राज्य की लूट और राजा चेतसिंह की दुर्दशा देखकर जिस समय काशी अचेत होने त्वगी तब उनके नालायक बेटे, जो गुण्डे कहलाते थे, सचेत हुए और उन्होंने विदेशी ‘मलिच्छ’ के प्रति घृणा का व्रत लिया । ऐसे लोगों में दाताराम नागर और भंगड़ भिक्षुक प्रमुख थे। उस समय कोई गोली बन्दूक नहीं चलती थी, यह लोग अपने बाहुबल और शारीरिक दक्षता के बल पर जीते थे। इनके अखाड़े होते थे और ये शरीर को बलशाली बनाने और शस्त्र चलाने की शिक्षा लेते थे। इसी अखाड़े की शिष्यपरम्परा में तलवारिया दाताराम नागर हो गए हैं। काल भैरव के मन्दिर के पास, हाटकेश्वर के मन्दिर के बगल में इनका घर था । दरअसल उस इलाके में नागर ब्राह्मणों के कई परिवार थे।

अपने दबंग स्वभाव के कारण वे कुछ लोगों, जो अंग्रेज़ी हुकूमत के पिट्ठू थे, की आंखों में खटकते थे। उनमें एक थे मिर्ज़ापुर के बनकट मिसिर जो एक बाहुबली अपराधी थे और एक था मुंशी फ़ैयाज़ अली जो सरकार का एक छोटा कर्मचारी था।

मुद्दा बना मुहर्रम का दुलदुल का जुलूस। हर साल यह जुलूस बुलानाला, ठठेरी बाज़ार होकर निकलता था जहां मुस्लिम आबादी शून्य थी। कहते हैं, जब विश्वेश्वर गंज की सड़क बन गई तो दाता राम ने भुतही इमली, बुलानाला तथा ठठेरी बाजार वाली गली के रास्ते दुलदुल घोड़े को ले जाने का विरोध किया । उनका कहना था कि जब सड़क बन गईं तब घोड़ा सड़क के रास्ते ले जाना चाहिए। लेकिन फ़ैयाज अली की शह पर जुलूस ज़िद करके उसी रास्ते ले जाया गया। इस पर तलवार चल गईं, दाताराम ने अद्भुत कला प्रदर्शित की। इन्होंने दुलदुल के घोड़े को काट दिया। जुलूस में शामिल कुछ लोग घायल हुए और सभी भाग गए। काशी में दंगे भड़क उठे।

दाता राम नागर पर वारंट निकला । ये कटेसर में बड़ी कठिनाई से पकड़े गए। इनको गिरफ्तार करने गए पुलिस दल के कई लोगों को इन्होंने खाली हाथ लोटे की सहायता से घायल कर दिया।इनको कालेपानी की सज़ा हुई। इन्होंने सज़ा को बहुत शालीनता और साहस के साथ स्वीकार किया और रो रहे अपने साथियों को डांटा।

जहां तक नागर के चरित्र की ऐतिहासिकता का सवाल है, इसका ज़िक्र Benares Gazetteer में है। गजेटियर में नागर की सजा के सम्बन्ध में लिखा है कि “About thirty Nagars of Benares resenting the just conviction and sentence on one of their number, proceeded to create disturbance.”

(४)

बात उस कजरी से शुरू हुई थी जिसकी टेक है “नागर नैया जाला काले पनिया रे हरि” जो कि पंडित शिव प्रसाद मिश्र रुद्र काशिकेय की अमर कृति बहती गंगा के एक चैप्टर का शीर्षक भी है।

महाराजा चेतसिंह को वारेन हेस्टिंग्स द्वारा काशी की गद्दी से हटाए जाने के बाद काशी के सपूतों के एक समूह, जिन्हें गुंडा कहा गया, ने अंग्रेज़ो और उनके पिट्ठुओं के प्रति एक घृणा पाल रखी थी जिसका प्रदर्शन प्रायः “अविनय अवज्ञा” के रूप में होता था। दाताराम नागर इसी प्रकार के एक बागी थे। इनके ठीक विपरीत थे वाराणसी ज़िले के दक्षिणी छोर और मिर्ज़ापुर में सक्रिय बनकट मिसिर। उनको अंग्रेज़ प्रशासन का प्रश्रय था लिहाज़ा मनमानी भी करते थे।

दोनों ही एक दूसरे की आंखों में खटकते थे। एक दिन बाकायदा आमंत्रण देकर दोनो एक दूसरे के आमने सामने हुए और उनमें द्वंद्व युद्ध हुआ। बनकट मिसिर निरस्त्र होकर भाग खड़ा हुआ और नागर उसके पीछे पीछे भागे। वहीं रास्ते में रात के अंधेरे में उन्हें एक स्त्री दिखाई दी। इस भेंट को मैं शब्दशः रुद्र काशिकेय के ही शब्दों में प्रस्तुत कर रहा हूं:

------------------

अत्यन्त प्रगल्मा की तरह उसने हँसकर नागर का हाथ थाम लिया। नागर के शरीर में बिजली दौड़ गई । रक्तस्रोत के आलोडन से उसके शरीर को मासपेशियाँ सनसना डठीं । उसने उसे स्नेहार्द्र प्रलुब्ध दृष्टि से देखा | उसके भी हाथ उठे ओर उसने ज्योत्स्ना-स्नात सुरापूर्ण पात्र के समान मदिर उस रमणीय स्त्री के कमनीय कलेवर को अपनी ओर खींचा | रमणी खिंचने का उपक्रम कर ही रही थी कि नागर चौंका और उसका हाथ छोड़ते हुए उसने हल्के झटके से अपना हाथ भी छुड़ा लिया | नारी गिरते-गिरते बची।

नागर को सहसा अपने पिता का वचन स्मरण हो आया था जो उसे वीरब्रत में दीक्षित करते समय उसके पिता ने कहे थे---“बेटा ! इस व्रत का घारण करने वाला पर-स्त्री को माता समझता है ।” और उसके पिता वह व्यक्ति थे जिन्होंने नागर ब्राह्मणों के कुलदेवता भगवान हाटकेश्वर की स्थापना काशीजी में की थी । उसने तड़पकर पूछा---“ तू कौन है?”

“ऐसे ही पूछा जाता है ?” नारी ने उलटे प्रश्न किया । नागर दो कदम पीछे हटा । नारी के समक्ष कभी परुष न होने बाला उसका हृदय स्वस्थ होते ही पुनः स्निग्ध हो गया था। उसने हताश-से स्वर में कहा—“अच्छा भाई, तुम कौन हो?” नारी हँसी, उसने उत्तर दिया—‘पहले एक प्रतिष्ठित ठाकुर की कुँचारी कन्या थी, अब किसी की रखैल कसबिन हूँ।“

“ऐसा कैसे हुआ?”नागर ने पूछा।

“वैसे ही जैसे यहाँ आते-आते तो तुम मर्द थे पर यहाँ आते ही देवता बन गए।”

“तुम्हे कसबिन किसने बनाया?”

“सब मिसिर महाराज की किरपा है। साल भर हुआ मैं अपनी बारी में आम बीन रही थी जहाँ से मिसिर ने मुझे उठवा मंगाया और कसबिन से भी बदतर बनाकर रख छोड़ा है।”

“इस बखत यहाँ केसे आई हो?”

“सुना था आज मिसिर से किसी की बदी है। देखने आई थी कि मिसिर का गला कटे और मेरी छाती ठंडी हो।”

“अब क्या?”

“क्या कहूँ? भागती बखत मिसिर ने मुझे यहाँ देख लिया है। अब बड़ी दुर्दशा से मेरी जान जायगी। तुम्हारी सरन हूँ, रच्छा करो।”

नागर ने दो मिनट कुछ सोचा; फिर बोला--- तुम नारघाट चली जाओ। वहीं घाट पर में तुमसे मिलूँगा ।”?

रमणी फिर हँसी। नागर मुस्करा उठा।

----------------

इस प्रसंग के अंतिम दो वाक्यों में रुद्र काशिकेय ने संकेत दे दिया है कि प्रेम दोनों के ही हृदयों में अंकुरित हो चुका था।

बहरहाल, उस समय का समाज इस प्रकार का नहीं था कि नागर महाराज उसे घर में ले आते। लिहाज़ा उन्होंने नारघाट पर ही एक किराये का घर लेकर उसे अवस्थित किया तथा आजीविका के लिए नृत्य संगीत का प्रशिक्षण दिलवाया।

रुद्र काशिकेय ने आगे लिखा है, “जब कभी वह मिर्जापुर जाता तब उसकी सारी व्यवस्था देख-सुन दिन रहते ही उसके यहाँ से चला आता । रात उसके घर कभी न ठहरता । उसे वह सुन्दर पुकारता था। वह उसे सुन्दर लगती थी।“

किस प्रकार का प्रेम था यह भाई? भावना थी, लेकिन उसकी अभिव्यक्ति नहीं थी। मिलते थे लेकिन वासना का सम्बन्ध नहीं था। अंग्रेज़ी में एक विशेषण है “platonic love”। लेकिन मुझे इसके लिए शहरयार का शेर सबसे उपयुक्त लगता है:

तुझको रुसवा न किया ख़ुद भी पशेमाँ न हुए 
इश्क़ की रस्म को इस तरह निभाया हमने

लेकिन जब नागर को काले पानी की सज़ा हुई तो सुंदर की व्यथा कजरी बनकर फूट पड़ी।

अरे रामा, नागर नैया जाला कालेपनियाँ रे हरी
सबकर नैया जाला कासी हो बिसेसर रामा,
नागर नेया जाला कालेपनियाँ रे हरी
घरवा में रोवें नागर, माई औ बहिनियाँ रामा,
सेजिया पे रोवे बारी घनियाँ रे हरी!
खूंटियां पर रोवे नागर ढाल तरवरिया रामा,
कोनवाँ में रोबे कड़ाबिनियाँ रे हरी !
रहिया में रोवे नागर संगी और साथी रामा
नार घाट पर रोवे ई कस्बिनिया रे हरी
जो मैं जनत्यूं नागर जइबा कालेपनिया रामा,
हमहू चलि अवत्यूं बिनु गवनवा रे हरी.

इति।🙏🙏