Tag Archives: India

India Is Tolerant, And I Am Proud To Be Indian- Zakir Hussain

Zakir Hussain is India’s iconic tabla maestro. Speaking with Sugandha Indulkar, Hussain discussed the high volume tolerance debate, why he feels media should temper its tone – and being the first heartthrob of Indian music:

We’re seeing a considerable debate on tolerance currently – is India a tolerant nation?

Yes, India is a tolerant nation. Indians know how to live peacefully with each other. We are a diverse country and in our diversity, we’ve found peace and compassion.

I am proud to be an Indian. My wife is an American. I can get an American passport – i never went for it. I believe i am an Indian, my father believed it, because there is a deep-rooted connection with the culture and art of India that we are constantly aware of. At the time of Partition, many people went to Pakistan but we stayed here because we knew we were Indians. It really is unique, this beautiful, culturally rich nation of ours. We are peace-loving – and we need to hold on this harmony. We should not give anyone an opportunity to pit us against one another.

But we are hearing many contrarian views. Have you faced any intolerance yourself?

 

Tabla Maestro Zakir Hussain who was the chief guest for the IFFK 2015 performing at the inaugural function in Thiruvananthapuram on Friday

Not at all. I am the quintessential Mumbai boy. I was brought up in Mahim. My father was the best tabla player I knew. His discipline and dedication were very inspirational. My parents were staunch followers of Islam. At home, after my morning prayers and riyaaz, I would go to a madrasa and pray. From there, I’d go to St Michael’s school, before which I would go to the chapel and say my hymns and novenas. In the evening, I used to go to a temple and then come home to learn tabla again.

 

Courtesy: Indiatimes

COMMUNISTS AND ‘AZAADI’

  • By Dr.Rahul Shastri

Whether it was E.M.S Namboodiripad or Harkishen Singh Surjeet then or Sitaram Yechury now, it comes as no surprise to listen to Communists praising Pakistan or China.

sita-ram-yechuri

During 1962 India-China war, EMS said, “…the Chinese had entered territory that they thought was theirs and hence there was no question of aggression. At the same time, the Indians were defending territory that they considered theirs and so they were not committing aggression either…” .

In  1998, the general secretary of CPI(M), Harkishen Singh Surjeet reiterated the position of  E.M.S on the issues of border conflicts. Now, Sitaram Yechury, General Secretary of Communist Party of India (Marxist) says, what is wrong in saying ‘Pakistan Zindabad’.

There is a confluence of Hate Hinduism brigade today. Some openly talk of breaking India, and their right to do so is defended by others on grounds of “freedom of expression (FOE)”. Make no mistake, this is only a ‘good cop, bad cop’ routine. The agenda that unites them is Hate Hinduism. Communists supply the ideological and moral leadership, the media and westernised intelligentsia multiply the firepower, and the Congressis and others provide cannon fodder.

What is happening today is not idle chatter. It resonates with the tragic history of India. An aspect of its history that is deliberately hidden by communist historians, who control the history writing – How the communists have helped to break India.

What the communists did to break India and create Pakistan should never be forgotten. Those who forget history run the risk of it being repeated – the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce. Here are the documented details of communist love for Pakistan which led them to break India:

PAKISTAN DEMAND MADE MUSLIM LEAGUE ANTI IMPERIALIST !

The demand for Pakistan had only to be raised for the communists to declare that Muslim League had become anti-imperialist and was no longer communal. Further that Jinnah was comparable to Gandhiji. Unbelievable? Read for yourself what Sri PC Joshi wrote in those days:

We were the first to see and admit a change in its character when the League accepted complete independence as its aim and began to rally the Muslim masses behind its banner. We held a series of discussions within our party and came to the conclusion in 1941-1942 that it had become an anti-imperialist organization expressing the freedom urge of the Muslim people that its demand for Pakistan was a demand for self determination…“

A belief continues to be held that League is a communal organization and that Mr. Jinnah is Pro-British.  But what is the reality? Mr. Jinnah is to the freedom loving League masses what Gandhiji is to the Congress masses. They regard the League as their patriotic organization as we regard the Congress.”[1]

COMMUNIST’S IDEOLOGICAL SUPPORT TO “MUSLIM LEAGUE” & ‘PAKISTAN’

Sri Hamdani, a Pakistani lawyer, presumably a leftist, writes the “CPI was the only organized secular party which supported the demand for Pakistan, and gave it an ideological justification on the basis of the principle of the right of self-determination to sub-national groups.” [2]

What was this justification?

The communist justification was “…The Muslim masses feared that they would be oppressed and exploited by Hindu India. … To refuse this demand [for Pakistan] meant to sanction national inequality and oppression.[2]

Oppression! Exploitation! In their name, destroy the country!
Does anyone find echoes of ‘ham kya mange azadi’ here?

The CPI declared approval of the AIML’s political aspirations… They also questioned the right of Congress to speak for the whole of India.[2]. Sajjad Zaheer, a noted Communist leader and intellectual, later the Secretary General of the Communist Party of Pakistan in 1948, supported the demand for Pakistan. The Party itself supported the demand for Muslim separatists “to the point of secession of the Muslim nationalities...” [4]

COMMUNIST CADRE & ORGANISATION FOR PAKISTAN & MUSLIM LEAGUE

The problem with Pakistan demand was that Muslim League was not a mass organisation, since aristocrats and vested interests had important positions in it. The communists decided to change things at the ground level, by building the Muslim League wherever needed.

On Sajjad Zaheer’s suggestion, the Party decided to encourage its ranks to join the AIML with the intention of turning the AIML into a mass organisation.” [2]. The Communist Party not only supported the Muslim League, but also gave its own people like Sajjad Zaheer, Abdullah Malik and Daniyal Latifi to the League.” [3]. “… a number of well-known Communists like Daniyal Latifi and progressives like Mian Iftikharuddin resigned from the Communist Party and the INC to join the AIML.[2]

Daniyal Latifi was a well-known Indian communist who gave up his lucrative practice at Lahore to join the Communist Party as a fulltime worker. He later joined the Punjab AIML and became its active member.[2]

He was “trained in law by Jinnah himself, authored the Punjab Muslim League’s manifesto for the 1945-1946 elections, … the League’s entire election campaign in the 1945-1946 elections was stage managed in Punjab by the Communist Party of India….[3]

Mian Iftikharuddin was the president of the Punjab Provincial INC Committee, but was a very close sympathiser of the Communist Party. He was also a member of the Punjab Assembly from 1937 to 1947. He joined the AIML only in the last months of 1945. [2]. The Party also issued instructions to the district workers to cooperate with the AIML and enroll new members for the AIML organisations.[2]

COMMUNIST PROPAGANDA AND CERTIFICATES FOR ‘MUSLIM LEAGUE’:

The “AIML welcomed the Communist decision, as the popular base of the Communist Party could now be utilised by it to rally support for itself.” [2]. The communists set to work, issuing certificates: “After joining the AIML, the Communists tried to refurbish the AIMLs image as a progressive and forward looking organisation[3]

The biggest advantage was that with Communist certificates, Pakistan supporters were able to escape the charge of communalism and acquire a ‘freedom fighter’ halo. As Hamdani says: “the Communist Party of India that most secular and non-communal institution … wholeheartedly supported the Muslim League and the Pakistan Movement during the 1940s… They would not have done so if they had thought the League was operating on a narrow communal agenda.[3] 

Does anybody find echoes in what is happening with the Kashmiri separatists today?

PAKISTAN DEMAND REVOLUTIONARY, AKANDA BHARAT SEPARATIST!

Communist perversion reached its logical limit when they characterised Pakistan demand as nationalist and anti imperialist, while Akhanda Bharat slogan was called separatist!

Partition 1

While supporting the Pakistan demand in official documents, Sri Adhikari writes “We saw in the growth of the Muslim League not the growth of communalism but the rise of anti-imperialist consciousness among the Muslim masses…”.

On the other hand the same document refers to the supporters of Akhada Bharata as “… Hindu minded communal reactionary who under the garb of Akhanda Bharat …” “….slogan of “Akhand Hindustan” leads in fact not to unity but to disunity and disruption.” [4]

In this way was the banner of Pakistan unfurled by the communists in India. They attacked, delegitimised, and isolated the nationalists of India and helped to break India.

2

WHAT WAS THE RESULT OF COMMUNIST ACTIONS?

According to Ram Manohar Lohia the Communist support to the partition demand “acted like an incubator,[6] meaning that the seeds of Pakistan were nursed to ripeness in Communism. Those who tend to dismiss nationalist concerns at what is happening today as ‘alarmist’ would do well to study how Pakistani muslims today assess the contribution of communists in those days.

1. “Muslim League itself in the mid-1940 s benefited from communist work among the peasantry and strengthened its own secular appeal among a large section of the Muslim masses.” [5]

2. “By equating a religious community with a nationality, the Communists helped aiding the communal ambitions of the vested interests among the Muslims even further, giving respectability to these elements and, in the process, drove a wedge in the unity of the national forces.[2]

3. “the Communists were willing to be taken for a ride by the AIML leadership, and this probably the Leaguers enjoyed immensely.” [3]

THE WAGES OF SIN WERE PAID IN BLOOD

When the communists led by Sajjad Zaheer went to Pakistan to collect their wages of sin, they met with bitter disappointment.

Even earlier, communists and their supporters were denied tickets and formal positions in the party by the Muslim League, and the League manipulated things to its own advantage [pp 570-1, 6].

After the formation of Pakistan, the “state started to use Islam as a political weapon to counteract various democratic forces. Islamic doctrine was employed in the media to persuade people against the anti-religious (meaning anti-Islam) … communists. Public gatherings by communists were occasionally attacked and disrupted by mobs claiming Islamic tendencies or love for Pakistan.” [6]. “Public Safety Acts and other draconian measures from the colonial period were reinvigorated and used to arrest and harass party workers and sympathetic trade unionists. Important members of the Communist Party of Pakistan’s central committee were periodically jailed and communist publications were routinely banned or confiscated. Even literary journals linked to the Progressive Writers Association, Sawera, Adab e Latif or Nuqush, were constantly asked to stop publication for disseminating anti-state literature.” [6]

Soon there was a crackdown and incarceration of the “…members of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Pakistan, Sajjad Zaheer and Mohammad Ata. The poet and progressive intellectual, Faiz Ahmed Faiz (Faiz was never a card-carrying member of the Communist Party) was also accused of being a co-conspirator and was jailed along with the others. … Zaheer spent the next several years in jail and soon after his release in 1955 he went back to India.” [6]

…“there were widespread arrests and blanket clampdown on communist party activities. The entire process crippled the movement and demoralized cadres.” [6]

Many were tortured, and Hassan Nasser of Hyderabad, was tortured to death. Communist organisations like the “Kisan Committee, Sind Hari Committee, Democratic Women’s Association, Peace Committee, Democratic Student Federation,and other groups … were very soon contained through severe persecution and state violence.” [6]

The wages of sin were paid in blood by the Pakistanis. 

The same has happened to communists in Iran, East Pakistan, and all other Islamic states. When will they understand that no amount of idealism can justify long lasting lunacy and betrayal of nationalism?

Why this lunacy? Most communists are not born idiots. One can only infer that they are blinded by hate. Hatred for Hinduism. Hatred is destructive. Love for the motherland should supplant hatred in the human soul. That alone is the way forward.

Vande Mataram!

REFERENCES:

[1] PC Joshi Congress and the Communists, People’s Publishing House Bombay, p 5.

[2] Communist Support for the Creation of Pakistan, Y.L. Hamdani, http://www.naseeb.com/journals/the-communists-support-for-the-creation-of-pakistan-135971 ,

[3] “Heretic, communist and Muslim Leaguer” —Yasser Latif Hamdani, June 14, 2010, http://archives.dailytimes.com.pk/

[4] G. Adhikari, Report to CC, on Pakistan and National Unity, Communist Party of India.

[5] “Communists in a Muslim Land: Cultural Debates in Pakistan’s Early Years” Kamran Asdar Ali,  Modern Asian Studies, 45, pp 501-¬534, 2011.

[6] “The Guilty Men of India’s Partition”, Ram Manohar Lohia.

ADDITIONAL REFERENCES:

Watch what Sitaram Yechuri’s said in an interview with Karan Thapar

His full interview with Karan Thapar is here.

The Story of a GREAT BETRAYAL, blog post.

The 7-Great-Indian-Communist-Treachery.

Communists as Razakar Collaborators:
K M Munshi the Indian representative to Nizam, wrote about Commie Betrayal.

CD01  CD02

Indian Communists as Chinese Stooge:
Declassified CIA reports on Indian Commies during 1962 War is damning.

C1 C2

C3  C4

Indian Communists as British stooge:

C5  C0

Indian Communists as KGB Stooge:

CE1 CE2

Dr.Ambedkar on Communists: “In another context, presiding over a District conference of the Depressed Classes at Masur in September 1937, Ambedkar declared that he was a confirmed enemy of the Communists who exploited the labourers for their political ends, and there was no possibility of joining them. Reference: Book Perfidies of Power: India in the New Millennium, by P Radhakrishnan, page 54.

Why Communists opposed the Constitution?
A must know quote of Dr.Ambedkar from his speech on 25th November 1949 (Reference from archives of Parliament debates)

Ambedkar

 

Sermon on the Streets

The lefties are in general experts in deception. For one, they use disruption and blackmail as replacements to what is required in a civilized society – most significantly truth and transparency in public discourse, stability of state and society, and respect for institutions processes and their proper functioning. The recent phenomenon of AAP is not really different in this matter. Whether it is moralizing to others without having any morality themselves, assuming a pedestal to escape scrutiny, looking for soft targets, immoral use of public emotions, conflating goals with high sounding and vacuous theories, essentially AAP is through and through commie. Their discourse is best described as ‘Sermon on the Streets’ – something meant to catch following with no clue what the following is for.

Main Problem – Lack of Accountability

What Kejriwal demonstrated inside and outside of government is his absolute lack of accountability. When making false allegations, he is not accountable because his goal is not to ‘prove’ – after all his goal is what matters, not his action, and he is not accountable either to society or to state in any matter! He can go blackmailing the society and state with disruption. And worse, he can do that even as CM of a state when his primary responsibility is to ensure no disruption actually happens.

 Given that Kejriwal’s ascent to power happened without a clear majority, his primary role one would expect is to set things right in Delhi before initiating things that require a bigger mandate. Yet he does things entirely opposite, and without showing any consistency or commitment to his responsibilities resorts to blackmail every now and then. He threatens people that if his proposed bill does not get passed through his insisted unconstitutional method, he would resign. In spite of an assurance of support from both opposition and alliance in case he follows the procedure, he does not. He undermines the protocol and Lt Governor and tries to push things in his usual unruly ways. Finally he resigns after making false allegations against other parties.

The brief story of his ascent and resignation only that of his lack of accountability, untrustworthiness and dishonesty. Five year tenure for a government is not laid down for no reason – it is meant to allow the government function, consistently perform its basic duties while taking time for well thought out reforms as needed. Leaving a position within two months is considered unprofessional and unethical even in small time jobs, unless one can demonstrate and indispensable reason. To quit government in less than two months without any compelling reason like sabotage is unforgivable. Kejriwal must know that legislation is a small part of governance – majority of governance involves execution and implementation of what is already legislated. Can the country afford such unreliable leaders to be voted to power? Forget power, can they be trusted to function responsibly even in opposition? In spite of conducting so irresponsibly if they think they can audaciously compete for lok sabha polls, is it bringing down politics or reforming it?

Democracy

The real test of someone’s conformance with an open society democracy is the way they deal with dissent and opposition. The congress has a history of suppressing dissent and opposition for want of truth in their favor – right from illegitimately trying to fix opponents into fake cases and character assassination to banning books. Whether it is the targeting of Savarkar and RSS in 1948 or emergency or the recent bogie of Hindu terror, congress leadership in its socialist friendship conducted itself in the most inimical way to an open society democracy. Communist parties always stood one step ahead of congress in this matter. AAP with its cong-naxal background can therefore not be expected to augur well for any open society democracy.

Legislations are meant to be proposed, presented, reviewed, revised, refined until they are found to be in perfect consonance with existing law and implementable. The purpose of dissent is so thoroughly undermined by Kejriwal that he does not fit into any kind of democracy. It is as if he has the right to dissent with out of power and there can be no dissent when he is in power. Such duplicity is not just his individual trait but of his unfit-for-democracy party.

Here is a compilation on mediacrooks of the way in which the AAP leaders respond to criticism and opposition:

ImageCan any democracy or a civilized society allow such unruly, anti-social and rowdy element to lead it?

This being the fact, the party calling itself a common man party is where the real deception lies. Open society democracy is of the people precisely because it is of the common man – there is nothing more inimical to the interests of the common man than being damaging to democracy and democratic methods.

Anti-Corruption

The anti-corruption movement that was initially started by the nationalists threatened the corrupt and congress because its primary agenda included not just prosecuting scamsters but bringing back the black money from abroad. Right from 2G and coal allocation several scams were exposed and brought into public awareness. Bringing back black money stashed abroad was one of the major demands of the anti-corruption agitators like Ramdev Baba.

Anti-Corruption Achievements of AAP

  1. AAP or its gang did not expose any of the scams or corruption – they happen to be exposed by the nationalists. Kejriwal merely repeated some allegations against Robert Vadra, riding on someone else’s work to gain some public space. Prashant Bhushan tried to hog the limelight for 2G expose he did not do – it was exposed by Pioneer.
  2. Black money issue was completely subverted by friends of congress – black money is not just about fiscal corruption, it is anti-social in many ways and AAP hides this more dangerous aspect, vacuously making noise in the name of corruption, trying to equate pickpocketing to treason.
  3. AAP hijacked the original agenda of anti-corruption, fizzled it out of its spirit and word, reduced it to some farce of a law and then finally aligned with the party that has been looting the country for decades.
  4. Kejriwal made false allegations against Nitin Gadkari and retreated when asked for proof. He called Modi corrupt, which even congress did not dare accuse. So essentially he brought down the movement from its roots in truth to the realm of allegations and mudslinging. This is a bigger sabotage of the otherwise sustained anti-corruption activity in the country.
  5. Kejriwal cynically abused and misused the public sentiment against corruption to malign the BJP while carefully covered up congress in multiple steps.
  6. Not surprisingly for skeptics, the moment AAP got to power there is no talk of congress corruption anymore, Sheila Dixit and other scamsters are no more villains. This deception seems to be lost on many, in the vain hope that Kejriwal needs more time to do things right. However Skeptics cannot ignore the possibility of the cynical way in which sample scapegoats are being kept ready to be sacrificed for elections – while the AAP agenda has nothing that can contain or catch the biggest criminals.

It is not an exaggeration to say Kejriwal was brought to render the anti-corruption agitation harmless for the congress – his achievement is precisely that. Many quickly jump to call this a ‘conspiracy theory’, as though conspiracy needs an evidence. But we have not proceeded from allegation to data – we are proceeding from data to deduction and that leaves no scope for calling this a conspiracy theory or a speculation. Now whether his ‘intentions are good’, whether he meant to fizzle down the movement or did it by mistake is for him to demonstrate, because it is his actions in question ultimately.

What’s with corruption, anyway!

Corruption itself, is one of the several problems – being fiscally non-corrupt is a virtue of many commies of Bengal and Kerala, does that save the destruction they did in these regions? And if one were to bear a sense of proportion, both stagnation and growth of a society involve both corrupt and non-corrupt methods. To disorient the public discourse as though corruption is the only issue and suppressing topics of importance, is in itself deception of people. Look at the way issues of foreign funding or anti-nationals like Prashant Bhushan in the party or Kejriwal’s dubious friends like NAC members, convicted criminals like Binayak Sen become non-issues when in reality they are far more serious problems than corruption.

Who does AAP actually threaten?

India in the days of Russian friendship has seen a dangerous consolidation of communists in politics and academics. Naxalite movements, communist parties and communist influence within congress party rose steeply. While their stranglehold on academics remains, the naxalite movements and communist hegemony was controlled to an extent after the fall of USSR. Maoism, a Chinese gift is still being fought.

The prospects of a party like AAP threatens the revival of India in every way –

  1. Economic revival is threatened with its freebie culture and anti-investment climate they are creating.
  2. Development of the country is threatened by its apathy towards infrastructure and job creation.
  3. Both internal and external security is threatened, with the way the likes of AAP try to weaken the morale of security forces and align openly with naxals and jihadis.
  4. Integrity of the nation is threatened by their antagonism to the core identity of the nation.
  5. Social order and harmony are threatened by their anarchist ways.

Save Congress

It threatens the nation more than anyone and anything. That AAP does not threaten congress, that it is meant to protect congress, that its challenge is to BJP and other nationalists should by now be clear to any observant mind. That a vote for AAP is an indirect vote for congress, is already said by some – but it should be realized that a vote for AAP is a vote against the stability and development of the nation, and an invitation of danger to the nation. Outfits like AAP are floated to cynically exploit anti-incumbency, to curtail the strong anti-congress sentiment from expressing itself in the ballot, which is essentially an antithesis of democracy.

While AAP is the most recent example, the trick that congress uses is not new. Here is the algorithm –

  1. Rise credibility for the person by making him shout against congress misdeeds and corruption
  2. Make him look like a personification of ideals and employ media in his favor
  3. Garner votes in his name and divide anti-incumbency vote
  4. Keep the person and outfit as long as it suits, merge him back when it suits.

PRP and TRS of Andhra Pradesh are precursors of AAP in this matter. It is their success that made congress attempt AAP in Delhi. A partial success of AAP in Delhi was sufficient to prevent a good government – and emboldens them for a bigger bait in loksabha. However their actions and intent are both clear by now, and the common man should by now be seeing through those.

AAP is not the only player in this, though. Third front, a prospective stitch of currently pro-congress parties like the SP and JD, is another similar attempt at dividing anti-congress vote and reinstating congress in power through the back door. The fact that a third front conveniently keeps forming and disintegrating, is itself the evidence. Sometimes it is a left front, sometimes third front, sometimes it is AAP. Goal remains the same – preventing a strong nationalist dispensation by fracturing votes. A strong nationalist dispensation hampers the prospects of petty and selfish politicians and remains their biggest enemy. There is no other reason why these savers of congress, be it AAP or JD or SP should hate BJP or RSS so much.

Lachit Borphukan – Bulwark Against the Delhi Sultans

Lachit Borphukan

Courtesy Hindu History Info

Assam was the only State in Bharat which defeated successive attempts at invasion by the Delhi Sultans and the Mughal Emperors. The state survived 17 invasions.  Lachit Borphukan and many other brave kings and generals ensured that the North East of Bharat remained free from the Muslim invasions. Lachit Borphukan was a commander in the Ahom kingdom known for his leadership in the 1671 Battle of Saraighat that thwarted a drawn-out attempt by Mughal forces under the command of Ramsingh I to take back Kamrup.

In the mid 1600s the Mughal Empire was in the noontide of its glory – one of the greatest and largest empires in the world with a power army to match it. By force and conciliation it had overrun a large part of India before their fanatical policies of religious persecution led to a series of uprisings and revolutions that brought the entire empire crashing into the dustbin of history.

Popularly referred to as Momai Tamuli, the first Borbarua and also Commander-in-Chief of Ahom forces during the reign of King Prataapa Singha. Momai Tamuli ensured that his son Lachit was properly educated in the disciplines necessary for nobility. After the completion of his formal education, Lachit was appointed as the scarf bearer of the Ahom Swargadeo, a post equivalent to that of a private secretary.

“Dexotkoi mumai dangor nohoi” – My uncle is not greater than my country

From his father, Lachit had inherited an unwavering sense of duty, involvement and loyalty. He now immersed himself completely in the preparations for the war. He was a harsh taskmaster, but very sincere to his job that he did not hesitate to behead even his uncle, who was found to be negligent on duty during an important situation of the war.

Liberation of Ahom territory

In August 1667, Lachit accompanied by Atan Burhagohain lead the Ahom warriors towards Guwahati. In November 1667, he captured the Itakhuli fort and later drove the Mughal forces beyond Manas after taking the faujdar Firruz Khan as prisoner.

In December 1667, the tyrant Aurangzeb was informed of the defeat of the Mughal forces at the hands of Ahom warriors. He ordered a massive army commanded by Raja Ram Singh to attack and subdue the Ahoms. Aurangzeb added an additional 30,000 infantrymen, 21 Rajput chiefs with their contingents, 18,000 cavalry, 2,000 archers and shielders, and 40 ships to Ram Singh’s forces of 4,000 troopers (from his  char-hazaari mansab), 1,500 ahadis and 500 barqandezes.)

Selection of the Battlefield

Lachit Borphukan anticipated such an move by the Mughals. Therefore, immediately after capturing Guwahati he began strengthening the defenses around the Ahom territory. He used the Brahmaputra as a natural perimeter defense and augmented her banks with stockades and mud embankments. He was fully aware that he did not stand a chance against the Mughal troops on the plains. He cleverly choose the hilly and forested terrain just outside Guwahati as his battleground, were the Ahom warriors had an advantage over the Mughals.

Siege of Guwahati and the Alaboi

Confrontation

The Mughal forces attacked Guwahati in March 1669 and for over a year laid siege to it. During  he entire period, the Mughals could not achieve any breakthrough as the Ahoms had erected secure defences . The unaccustomed terrain and climate also turned against the Mughal forces. The Ahoms had the advantage and were using it fully by conducting guerilla raids against the Mughal troops.

The Mughals tried to sow dissension among the Ahoms through trickery. They shot an arrow into the Ahom camp with a letter addressed to Lachit. In that letter, the Mughals offered to pay Lachit one lakh rupees and urged him to evacuate Guwahati. This incident was informed to the Ahom king, which raised doubts in his mind about the loyalty of Lachit. Atan Burhagohain quelled the king’s doubts about Lachit’s loyalty.

Followed by this the Mughals lured the Ahoms for a confrontation on the plains. The Ahom king urged Lachit to take this up as a challenge. A small force of Mughal troops commanded by Mir Nawab was to engage the Ahom warriors at Alaboi. The Ahoms had made elaborate preparations and concealed their reinforcement in trenches. This helped the Ahoms capture Mir Nawab and rout his troops. The Mughals enraged by this defeat let loose their entire forces on the Ahoms that led to a massacre of 10,000 Ahom warriors.

Lachit withdrew his forces up to the Itakhuli fort after this major setback. While the war was raging on, the Ahom king Chakradhwaja Singha died. He was succeeded by Udayaaditya Singha. Observing that none of the Mughal strategies were successful, Ram Singh offered the Ahoms 300,000 rupees to give up their claim on Guwahati and return to an earlier treaty agreed in 1639. However, this was fiercely opposed by Atan Burhagohain, who raised the suspicion that the tyrannical emperor of Delhi may not abide by this proposal.

Meanwhile, Munnawar Khan, the Mughal admiral joined Ram Singh, with a rebuking message from Aurangzeb to make war with the Ahoms and not friendship. Ram Singh was now forced to move in full strength against the Ahoms. He was informed of a breach in the embankment near Andharubali. At this time, Lachit was down with severe illness and could not actively oversee the battle preparations.

Snatching Victory from Defeat

Lachit leading his troops

Lachit leading his troops

The Ahom army was demoralized after their defeat at the hands of the Mughals in the previous battle at Alaboi. When they saw the huge enemy boats looming nearer, they were devastated and were on the brink of deserting and fleeing the scene. Sensing this, Lachit immediately ordered a flotilla of seven boats to be prepared for him and forced himself from the sickbed and on to the boats. He firmly stated that regardless of what happens, he will never desert his country. Seeing their general back on foot and hearing his words gave the Ahoms a big morale boost. All soldiers rushed to Lachit’s side and their numbers swelled immediately.

The Ahoms launched their small boats and Lachit led them to a head on confrontation with the Mughals in the middle of the river. The smaller Ahom boats had greater maneuverability as opposed to the large Mughal vessels. The Mughal boats were stuck in the water unable to navigate efficiently. In a closely fought battle, the Mughals were decisively defeated. The Mughal admiral Munnawar Khan was killed in battle. Many of the Mughal commanders and numerous troops were also killed.

The Ahoms chased the Mughals upto the Manas, which was the western boundary of the Ahom. Lachit also instructed his troops to be always alert for counterattacks from the Mughals. All these events are presumed to have taken place in the month of March in the year 1671.

Though Lachit emerged victorious in the war against the Mughals and restored the glory and dignity of Ahoms, the strains of war had taken their toll on him. He never recovered from his illness and died an year later in April 1672.

Legacy

Lachit Memorial at Naval Defence Academy

Lachit Memorial at Naval Defence Academy

He was put to rest at the Lachit Maidan built by the King Udayaditya Singh at   Hoolungapara in 1672. His statue was unveiled at the National Defense Academy at Khadakwasla in 2000 by then Governor of Assam, Lt. Gen. S K Sinha. Every year the best cadet passing out of the Academy is awarded the Lachit Medal . Nov 24th is commemorated as Lachit Divas in remembrance of this heroic son of Maa Bharati.

Source material & References  –

a.  Yuva bharati magazine – April 2011

b. Assam Info website

c. Sitaram Goel

Distorted History of Alexander’s Victory over Porus

Indian text books, it seems are written with the sole purpose of ensuring that Indians remain a diffident  race and forever look upto the foreigners as their source of strength and succour. Historians owing their allegiance outside of Bharat have been involved in writing history books which present distorted versions so as to show that we are a race of losers.  Unfortunately, post-Independence we had a Prime Minister and an Education Minister who were both convinced that Bharat’s past had nothing inspirational to offer.

Strabo, the Greek historian wrote: “Generally speaking, the men who have written on the affairs of India were a set of liars…Of this we became the more convinced whilst writing the history of Alexander.”

Charles Le Brun Alexander and Porus (1673). Source: wikipedia.org

Charles Le Brun Alexander and Porus (1673). Source: wikipedia.org

The articles below by Sri Rakesh Krishnan Simha must be read by all the youth of Bharat and pressure must be built on the government to take up re-writing of history to infuse patriotism and pride among the youth.

Marshal Zhukov on Alexander’s failed India invasion

and

Alexander vs Porus: Beyond the fog of war

A short Summary :Alexander’s invasion of India is regarded as a huge Western victory against the disorganised East. But according to Marshal Gregory Zhukov, the largely Macedonian army suffered a fate worse than Napoleon in Russia .

In 326 BCE a formidable European army invaded India. Led by Alexander of Macedon it comprised battle hardened Macedonian soldiers, Greek cavalry, Balkan fighters and Persians allies. The total number of fighting men numbered more than 41,000.

Their most memorable clash was at the Battle of Hydaspes (Jhelum) against the army of Porus, the ruler of the Paurava kingdom of western Punjab. For more than 25 centuries it was believed that Alexander’s forces defeated the Indians. Greek and Roman accounts say the Indians were bested by the superior courage and stature of the Macedonians.

Two millennia later, British historians latched on to the Alexander legend and described the campaign as the triumph of the organised West against the chaotic East. Although Alexander defeated only a few minor kingdoms in India’s northwest, in the view of many gleeful colonial writers the conquest of India was complete.

In reality much of the country was not even known to the Greeks. So handing victory to Alexander is like describing Hitler as the conqueror of Russia because the Germans advanced up to Stalingrad.

In 1957, while addressing the cadets of the Indian Military Academy, Dehra Dun, Zhukov said Alexander’s actions after the Battle of Hydaspes suggest he had suffered an outright defeat. In Zhukov’s view, Alexander had suffered a greater setback in India than Napoleon in Russia.