Zoroastrian Pride – At what cost?

Is it a false sense of superiority that is behind the Zoroastrian problem? Instead of feeling superior, is it time that Zoroastrians learnt something from these Hindoos, divided by caste?

Life in Parsi Colony - Cartoon by Satish Acharya.

The Parsis were exemplary because they stood high above the common divisiveness of caste and demonisation of The Other. We must remain a community that’s worth emulating – and worth preserving. (via Blindly into the abyss – The Times of India).

Snootiness stops you from learning

Bachi, I would not be so superior over these ‘Hindoos, divided by caste’. The same Hindus united to give shelter to your refugee forefathers, when driven away from your homeland. And before giving refuge, some 500 years earlier, to win back the lands conquered by Alexander.

Without Indian elephants corps, would the Sassanians have ruled for more than 500 years?

Staying down is defeat

Anyone in the world can have their lucky day – including Alexander!

Losing to Alexander was not the tragedy. The one important question which is ignored was “Were the Greeks able to retain their Indian or Persian conquests?”

Within the next few years, Western history admits that the Indians kings won back all their losses – quite unlike the rest of Alexander’s conquests. For instance the Sassanians, a true-blue Persian dynasty was able to retake Persia, in 223 AD, 500 years after Alexander, from Parthians, who in turn were able to depose the Seleucids after 250 years – by 63 BC. Egypt and Greece never recovered.

After the defeat and death of Cyrus The Great at the hands of Tomyris, the Persians stopped looking India-wards. 500 years later (nearly), with the help of the Indian cavalry and elephant corps, the Sassanians stopped the Romans at Persian borders in 363 AD.

Achaemenids did not learn their lessons from the death of Cyrus, the Great. Possibly, the outcome against Alexander would have been different, had they used more elephants at Gaugamela – instead of 12-15. Similarly, a 1000 years later, the Sassanian army, had forgotten their lessons – and could not use their few elephants to full effect, against the Islāmic Arabs.

But, the Sassanian dynasty was able to wrest back and defend Persian dominions from the Greco-Romans, after setting up an elephants corps in their army – evidenced, for instance, by the carvings at Taq-i-Bustan.

At one time, the Sassanian rulers had increased its Indian war elephant corps to 12,000.

Benefits of collaboration? When life in a Parsi household was lived at a leisurely pace ... Of an Edwardian India By SILLOO MEHTA (Image courtesy - Copyright © 2011, The Hindu.). Click for larger image.

Entrepreneurs or Collaboration?

Is it the entrepreneurship of Homi Mody that you are proud of?

Or his collaboration with the British? Can it be Homi Mody’s adulation and admiration of the British?

October 28th 1933.

On that day, the Bombay Mill Owners Association signed the Lees-Mody Pact. This earned all Indian industrialists, Nehru’s distrust. The British had succeeded once again in divide-and-rule.

While the whole country was on a boycott of British goods (specially Lancashire), 21 businessmen led by Homi Mody (father of Russi Mody, Piloo Mody) agreed to a system of ‘imperial preferences’ – which furthered India’s impoverishment. Earlier, Homi Mody had warned Gandhiji against the renewing the swaraj movement.

Homi Mody had his own political ambitions. After Independence, Nehru did try and make up with Homi Mody. Homi Mody was also included in to India’s Constituent Assembly – even though he had served the British well.

Or is it the wealth from opium trade with China by Parsi traders who set up their offices in Hong Kong that you are proud of? Or the collaboration in the opium trade (and slavery) on which the British Empire was built. Not that Parsis were not the only collaborators. Remember these Hindus traders, divided by caste, restricted by shubh labh compunctions played a lesser role (compared to the European and Parsi traders) in this opium trade.

Even during Alexander’s conquest of Persia, witness the complete collaboration that Alexander got from the defeated Achaemenid ruling family of Sisygambis, Stateira, Oxathres (brother of Darius III; also written as Oxoathres and Oxyathres) et al. But, at Indian North-West of the foursome Bessos, Spitamenes, Datafernes and the Scythians made Alexander’s life miserable. At Gaugamela, it was Bessos and his cavalry which broke Alexander’s formation.

The tribes and kshatrapas (satraps) of Indian North West swath, delayed Alexander for nearly three years – before he could step into India. In India, Alexander had to pay the King of Taxiles, Omphis, (Ambi) 1000 talents of gold (more than 25 tons of gold) – to secure an alliance. He had to return the kingdom of Punjab to Porus – purportedly, after winning the battle.

What were Alexander’s loot and pickings from India? Negligible.

SKETCH OF PARSI COUPLE BY MOKSHA; Posted on SATURDAY, MARCH 22, 2008. Click for larger image.

Bactra – Bharat-ah …

Of course, India is not what India calls itself.

Bharat(ah) and aryavart are the more common names. Bactra is the Greek pronunciation (possibly) of Bharat(ah). Till about 8th century BC, Zoroastrians were based in Iran.

Within a few years, after the fall of Zoroastrian Sassanian kingdom, under persecution by the Islāmic conquerors, in Persia, the first set of Zoroastrians made their way back to  India. Over the next 200 years, from 8th century to 10th century, the Zoroastrians returned to Bactra  – Bharat(ah).

This false sense of superiority is what is behind the Zoroastrian problem. Just like all Parsis are not drug dealers or British collaborators, Hindus don’t deserve negative tags. Factually bad and misplaced in terms of etiquette, you should take a 2ndlook at this caste tag.

Instead of feeling superior, it is time that Zoroastrians learnt something from these Hindoos, divided by caste.

---

Related articles

• Alexander basic Timeline (espliego.wordpress.com)
• Rare Objects, Rarer Practices (online.wsj.com)
• Cyrus the Great’ Cylinder Returns to Britain (frstephensmuts.wordpress.com)
• Who Was Better Alexander The Great or Phillip Ii (Essay) (socyberty.com)
• Bun maska at Kyani (thehindu.com)

Haridwar ‘pandas’ resist ‘progress’ and ‘modernization’

Family pandits cater to Indians of all hues

On a still summer afternoon in Haridwar, under the platform that was the gaddi office of Gangaram, Dhagdu, from Bihar, who uses just one name, crouched with his family. They waited for their turn, the moment when they would be noticed and the record keeper would write their names into the book. “We want our descendants to know that someone in their family had been here to Haridwar and attended a Mahakumbh,” said Dhagdu, rasping through betel nut stained teeth.

Minutes later, Ravindra Bharadwaj, an important-looking man with a walrus moustache, who sat surrounded by bahis—scrolls that house records of visiting families— summoned them.

Without looking at the family, Bharadwaj shot off questions—“What village? What caste? Your father’s name? Grandfather’s name?”—that left Dhagdu confused. Hasty consultations commenced as Bharadwaj tapped an impatient pen on thick, handmade paper: he was not idle, he had things to do.

When the answers were found, Bharadwaj began writing in Devnagari, slowly and deliberately—“Dhagdu, son of Ghela, grandson of Chuniya, hailing from Banka district of Bihar, visited Haridwar in April 2010, with his wife and two sons—Rohit and Ram. He was here to attend the Mahakumbh.” Asked to sign, Dhagdu pressed an ink-stained thumb on the paper. (via Modernization plan runs into ancient biases – Economy and Politics – livemint.com).

Keeping such traditions and records alive – without State patronage or support, is without parallel in the world. Indian brahmans have a great history – as indeed India itself has!

Alexander – an ethnic ‘cleanser’?

Alexander's armies would not have used Latin alphabets! (The Battle Of Ipsus /Alexander; a 1529 painting by Albrecht Altdorfer, German painter, now at the Alte Pinakothek, Munich). Click for larger image.

Some 23 centuries ago, Alexander massacred 8,000-10,000 Brahmins – most probably, from the Takshashila University. It was this massacre that possibly started the decline of Takshashila - and not some silly fiction of a Huna invasion.

The ‘provocation’ for this massacre was the active role of the Takshashila Brahmans in organizing Indian rulers to jointly face the Greek invasion.

Violence against intellectuals, (Brahmans) is taboo in India. Killing intellectuals, came easily to Alexander.

Remember, the execution of Socrates!

Those who learn from history

As their hold on India grew, the British kept their history lessons in mind. To neuter the Brahman threat, they unleashed an effective propaganda ploy – the invention of the caste system.

Upper-caste ‘Brahmans’ became exploiters. Indian kings ruled like oriental despots. Indian baniya, thou art an unscrupulous and unethical cheat! As for the ‘dispossessed’ peasant, or worker, he was a born liar and lazy shirker! Dirty Indians, all of us! The British Raj, was of course, enlightened, progressive, egalitarian.

And full of liberty.

A 1910 photo of the grand triad of Indian revolutionaries: Lala Lajpat Rai (left), Lokmanya Bal Ganghadar Tilak (centre) and Bipin Chandra Pal. The trio was also known as Lal, Bal, Pal.

Greek lessons in India

To puncture Indian campaign for self-rule, independence, the British propaganda machinery shot multiple arrows.

Against Lal-Bal-Pal, the British pitted Raja Ram Mohun Roy, Phule, Agarkar, Gokhale. Subhash Chandra Bose’s foil was Gandhiji. And the ‘evil’ caste system as the excuse for Indian ‘backwardness’! To cover up the daridra (poverty), dushkal (famine) and dravyashosha (drain), the British offered India ‘education’, ‘social reform.’

Patterned on the lines of a superior culture like Britain.

British legacy in India

Wonder why the Great British culture is taking them nowhere!

After they lost their slaves (in 1830), after the end of piracy (1860) and the end of colonies (1960). Even with a hybrid, mongrel polity, India has emerged as a significant economic force within 60 years of British departure.

Wonder what India missed by a doing this hybrid shindig – instead of a full Indic.

A shift in position

Last week, eyebrows were raised over yet another media appearance by the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh chief, Mohan Rao Bhagwat. This time, the fuss centred on his categorical public announcement that the next national president of the Bharatiya Janata Party would not be a Delhi-based leader, and that L.K. Advani would soon relinquish his post as leader of the Opposition. Fortuitously for the Indian foreign policy establishment, his prognosis that Pakistan and Afghanistan “are a part of us and will return one day” did not arouse corresponding attention. (via The Telegraph – Calcutta (Kolkata) | Opinion | A shift in position).

From Ashvakan to Afghans

The task of subduing the Afghan, (a possibly corrupt form of Ashvakan, meaning horse specialists in Sanskrit), from the time of Alexander  to the latest Russian and American misadventures in Afghanistan underscores, the nature of the Indo-Afghan relationship. From the time of Tomyris (Thamyris), when Indian elephant units helped the Afghans to massacre Persian invaders under Cyrus the Great, or when the Afghans hopelessly tied up Alexander.

Alexander’s Indo-Afghan campaign ‘gave him the runs’ (dysentery), his soldiers deserted him in droves, he had to make a marriage alliance, pay nearly 1000 talents (25,000 kg in gold) for an alliance, his dear horse Bucephalus died, he was himself injured twice, made to release prisoners (without a ransom).

End result – he massacred defenceless non-combatant populations and armies alike, when ‘opportunities’ presented themselves.

Islamic ‘conquest’ of India

While Islamic armies were marauding Europe, Central Asia, Africa, India held out. When Genghis Khan’s Mongol armies were running rampant, Islamic refugees found shelter in India, during the reign of Iltutmish. In 1221 Genghis Khan‘s Mongol armies pushed Khwarezm-Shah and other Persian refugees across the Indus into the Punjab, India.

During early Islamic rule, when India was still viewed as militarily difficult target, the Mongols did not think of attacking India.  Remember, that the Mongols attempted to invade Japan, a rather poor country then, without the Sado gold mines! The Japanese blessed their good fortune, when typhoons or (‘The Divine Wind” is what the grateful Japanese called) the Kamikaze, that scattered the Mongol invasion fleet in 1274 and 1281. The Kublai Khan himself barely escaped the fury of the typhoon during the second invasion.

India, the richest economy of the world at that time, with known and famous for its wealth, was spared by Genghis Khan! Just why would history’s foremost looter, invader, pillager spare India?

The Mongol fleet destroyed in a typhoon, ink and water on paper, by Kikuchi Y'sai, 1847

Encyclopedia Britannica says ‘Fortunately, the Mongols were content to send raiding parties no further than the Salt Range (in the northern Punjab region), which Iltutmish wisely ignored …” (emphasis mine). As Indian military reputation waned under foreign Islamic rule, the Mongols mounted a military expedition. The Mongols could succeed in India only under the foreign rule of the much-derided Islamic Tughlaks.

End of foreign Islamic rule

The 200-year foreign-Islamic rule from 1206 AD to 1400 AD ended when Ibrahim Lodi, an Afghan horse trader, cobbled together an alliance and sent the incompetent foreign rulers packing. The Lodis, were in turn deposed by another Afghan family, the Mughals.

The Mughals realized, early on, that freedom to Indians was non-negotiable – and enlisted Indian generals, kings, allies to expand their boundaries. The depredations of the foreign ‘Islamic’ rulers were partly reversed by these rulers of Afghan extract – with land reforms, tax reforms, reduction in forceful conversions, et al. The Lodis and Mughals partially reformed the Indic political model – deformed beyond recognition, during the 200 years of foreign Islamic rule. Land holdings remained concentrated in a few hands. Taxes were imposed and increased on the trading classes. Licenses and firmaans were reduced – but remained.

In the last 200 years

The only people who could win against the Afghans were the Indians – last under Ranjit Singhji. The British, and more recently, the Russians and Americans have failed miserably. British possessions of Afghanistan and Balochistan, which were handed to Pakistan on a platter, were a part of the Sikh-Punjab Empire, which fell into the British lap.

Till about 1960′s India-Afghanistan trade and relations were close and neighbourly. Rabindranath Tagore wrote the short story, ‘Kabuliwalla’. Subhash Chandra Bose escaped from Colonial Raj imprisonment during WW2, using the Afghan route to reach Germany finally.

In early 1970s, in Hyderabad,  कागजी बेदाना अनार (seedless pomegranates) from Kabul, were available at around Rs.4 a kg – at today’s value is about Rs.100 a kg (based on gold prices). Local varieties were sold at less than Rs.1 a kg.

Between 1950 to the post-1973, Nixon Chop world, saw increasing of walls, barriers, battening down of national boundaries. Marxism-Communism seemed relentless and inevitable. Closed economies were seen as the panacea of all problems. Trade was a dirty word. During this period, something momentous happened – a complete and total closure of the Indian mind. India’s international profile underwent a profound change. Indians, who earlier saw the world as a their stage, suddenly retreated into a shell.

Right and wrong

So, yes RSS view is right.

India and Pakistan are a part of the Indic family. What this means is to see Pakistan and Afghanistan not as troublesome neighbours, but as prospective future allies. The Indian political construct was always to surround the Indian heartland by buffer states – like Bangladesh, Nepal, Tibet, Pakistan and Afghanistan. It was not to take over these countries and expand into an unwieldy land mass.

So, when RSS, dreams of an Akhand Bharat, they are wrong. The idea of Bharat was value driven and not power-driven or ruler driven. What Bharat needs to focus on is not to create an Akhand Bharat, but a real Bharat, which will become a model for other countries, especially of the Greater India.

Back to the future

But the Indic model was never to have one king who ruled over others. The Indic model allowed for smaller kingdoms to compete for populations – based on opportunities, freedom, equity. Land holdings in the hands of the populations remained a unique Indian feature for thousands of years – and the West saw this feature only in the last 150-250 years. Religious restrictions in India were not even discussed – unlike the Desert Bloc where the ‘Cuius regio, eius religio’ principle (meaning whose land, his religion; CRER) was established.

In the Desert Bloc, the land, the religion and the very life of all subjects belonged to the king – unlike in India. And that is the Akhand Bharat that we all need to work for!

कागजी बेदाना अनार