# Things left out from Indian history textbooks



## Anorion (Sep 26, 2015)

Like im going by the supposition that all of history in our textbooks is hack, and it is a simplistic, biased, illogical, and often wrong interpretation of what was going on

so to start with,
Mahmud Ghazni, who raided the fertile Indian territories for riches and destroyed many temples was totally [strike]gay[/strike] heavily involved with a same sex lover. 
here is a depiction of him with his _slave_, Ayaz Malik

*41.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m9c30qujTO1r7c8sto1_500.jpg
It's complicated

This is a link to the Bibighar Massacre, where we indiscriminately slaughtered women and children, as well as soldiers who surrendered
*en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Cawnpore

We say we have never warred against other countries and hold that up as a badge of spiritual triumph over the rest of humanity, but we have killed and kill through deception and without honour. I wonder how many more times it has happened. 

We have the contributed the glorious words of "loot" and "thug" to the global vocabulary 

from books written by the British Soldiers at that time, they were actually winning against the superior numbers because of their techniques, but they surrendered only after calculating long term viability of their children, and then they were mercilessly culled


one question I always wondered about was who struck first, Afzal Khan or Shivaji

- - - Updated - - -

Ugh the Wikipedia article for the Cawnpore massacre also uses slightly misleading language
this is a good, short book of the events from the perspective of one of the surviving officers referred to in the wiki page
The story of Cawnpore


----------



## Nerevarine (Sep 26, 2015)

this is great, i never knew that


----------



## Anorion (Sep 27, 2015)

our textbooks leave out the humble origins of the rulers of India. 
For example the Qutubuddin Aibak entry says something on the lines of "Mohammad of Ghor made his able General the Sultan of Delhi"
what really happened was "Mohammad of Ghor raided India and left control of Delhi in the hands of a slave and a stable boy who rose through the ranks and was promoted to a General."
Iltutmish story also does not say his origins as a slave.


----------



## Pasapa (Sep 27, 2015)

Am I supposed to feel sorry for the British soldiers? ( or the women or children for that matter)


----------



## Anorion (Sep 28, 2015)

there is one simple, clean version of history which is also mind-numbingly boring.

and then there is 

Aram Shah, who became the second Sultan of Delhi. Nobody knows what his relation to the first Sultan was, whether he was a son, or a brother, or just happened to be in the vicinity of the Delhi chair when it was vacant. No one knows when and under what circumstances he died.  

news channels and tabloids, it is never too late to re-open this case.

---

We have an impression that Mahmud Ghazni came, looted, raped, raided and went away. But more often than not, he smartly avoided rulers who were too strong for him. In most places he was welcomed and given gifts, and tribute, and he moved on. The sacking and looting were there, but not constant, it was only particular cities or temple complexes. He wasn't a fan of Idol Worship. One time Ghazni came to Gwalior rulers in the region wooed him with gifts of elephants, but what won Ghazni over was a poem. A local general had it composed for Ghazni. Ghazni heard the poem in his court, it was heavily praised, he was very pleased, so he gifted the governor control of a few more forts and moved on.

this one is written by Mahmud Ghazni



> From the dread of the world-winning sword and the fear of the fort-crushing sceptre,
> The world became subject to me as I am subjected to reason,
> At one time there would I sit serene in my splendour and riches
> At another time following Avarice roamed I from country to country;
> ...



PHI Persian Literature in Translation


----------



## Anorion (Oct 24, 2015)

Somehow I think persians and moghuls have some of the most vilified version of history out there, and perhaps it was because they went at each other. A conquest can be peaceful, and mostly was. 
I mean we remember Rani Laxmibai so much, but omg Razia Sultan was the original feminist


----------



## Anorion (Nov 10, 2015)

this... this seems almost like alternate history


> "Those involved in this ludicrous case should recognise that the British Crown Jewels is precisely the right place for the Kohinoor diamond to reside, in grateful recognition for over three centuries of British involvement in India, which led to the modernisation, development, protection, agrarian advance, linguistic unification and ultimately the democratisation of the sub-continent."


src
Will have to remember the book, but If you read from the other perspective, they did take the task of ruling a vast multitude of people seriously, it was not just to leech.


----------



## Anorion (Nov 11, 2015)

I have a question about the 1857 Sepoy Mutiny
there is no doubt that being a Sepoy meant making many choices against Hindu and Muslim religious beliefs, but there is the particular matter of whether the Enfield Bullet cartridges actually contained beef and cow fat or not. 
from what I have read, it seems to be rumour-mongering to kick start the mutiny, in a similar way rumours are spread even today to stir up a particular section of a society for political motivations. 

If anyone can find any source that says the cartridges actually contained Cow or Pig fat, would like to see it. 

This is all I got, from The Great Fear of 1857
*i.imgur.com/kpapxdN.png


----------



## dan11 (Nov 11, 2015)

Anorion said:


> I have a question about the 1857 Sepoy Mutiny
> there is no doubt that being a Sepoy meant making many choices against Hindu and Muslim religious beliefs, but there is the particular matter of whether the Enfield Bullet cartridges actually contained beef and cow fat or not.
> from what I have read, it seems to be rumour-mongering to kick start the mutiny, in a similar way rumours are spread even today to stir up a particular section of a society for political motivations.
> 
> ...



victors always write the history.
Am i supposed to believe that this conniving piece of **** eating *******s , never engineered the literature for showing them in bright light...
n how did they actally democratized India.
If they had their way , they wud havedivided India 1000 times. It was sardar Patel that united India not filthy angrez .

pls start using ur brains guys .


----------



## rachitrt23 (Nov 11, 2015)

Anorion said:


> Like im going by the supposition that all of history in our textbooks is hack, and it is a simplistic, biased, illogical, and often wrong interpretation of what was going on
> 
> so to start with,
> Mahmud Ghazni, who raided the fertile Indian territories for riches and destroyed many temples was totally [strike]gay[/strike] heavily involved with a same sex lover.
> ...


Soo? Every history has an alternate version. Also u can't really say what happened


----------



## Anorion (Nov 12, 2015)

^yup that is right, not saying this is what has happened, the priority is to at least know all versions of the events. 
So for example, cannot say if the bullet cartridges actually had cow or beef fat, but neither can it be said that there was cow and beef fat in the cartridges, and which is why the revolution happened. Which is what is there in the textbook I read in school. 
this is the composition of gelatin. Products containing gelatin are available in the market. 
*i.imgur.com/cH5nGHp.png



dan11 said:


> victors always write the history.
> Am i supposed to believe that this conniving piece of **** eating *******s , never engineered the literature for showing them in bright light...
> n how did they actally democratized India.
> If they had their way , they wud havedivided India 1000 times. It was sardar Patel that united India not filthy angrez .
> ...



How many times have we ourselves divided the country after Independence? If the British practiced divide and rule in our nation, our political parties seemed to have learned from their example. I tried reading higher secondary textbooks of UK GCSE syllabus, but they seemed to cover only the period from the world wars, and not before. Their literature does look at colonization, the massacres, and the revolutions in a different light than our own, but the point of this exercise is to look at all the available information, it is the process of figuring out.


----------



## rachitrt23 (Nov 12, 2015)

I'm failing to see that point of this. Our textbooks also didn't said that USSR was an ally of Germany till Germany raided USSR.
We are told what happened most of the time. If you want to learn why it happened ofcourse you need some research. 
Also the way Britishers treated our Country it's nothing like what we are seeing now. If you believe in their version of history then you should believe what our government is doing right now is good for us


----------



## Anorion (Nov 12, 2015)

I didn't know that. Is there more such things left out? please do share

the point is to see what is accurately represented, and what is not. 
The sentence used in the Balbharti textbook is
"The news that the greased covering of the cartridges contained the fat of cows or of pigs hurt the religious sentiments of the Hindus as well as the Muslims and the soldiers were enraged"
it should have been
"The rumours that the greased covering of the cartridges contained the fat of cows or of pigs hurt the religious sentiments of the Hindus as well as the Muslims and the soldiers were enraged"
as you said, you need to find out more, who started the rumours and why. 
at that age, kids cannot question, we just learn by heart and take it for granted. After growing up, we mostly don't bother to question, but we have an opinion formed about what happened. This dictates our attitudes. It is important, I feel, to unlearn these things drilled into us in school, and get a better understanding.

can give some examples of threads where such drilled in attitudes show up 
What Lord Macaulay Said About India In 1835 - Every Indian Should Read This
Indians sue UK Queen for return of 'stolen' £100m Kohinoor diamond


----------



## rachitrt23 (Nov 12, 2015)

Wait basing the whole country on the actions of a few is not fair imo. 
Second trying to get the diamond back is not that evit as you're making it to be. This stuff happens everywhere. 
Third you're hell bent that it was a rumour. What if it was for real and the rumour that you're taking about is in itself a rumour? 
Also saying that people learn by heart and make it their attitude is plain wrong. Do u actually believe what the North Koreans are taught, they actually believe that?


----------



## rachitrt23 (Nov 12, 2015)

A thought came in my mind. What if that rumour was initiated by the British only? So that due to the mutiny and its implications they can use more forces and effectively take control of India?


----------



## Anorion (Nov 12, 2015)

AFAIK, it seems to me that no one knew, those working in the armoury, or even the company contracted to provide the grease, whether or not the grease actually contained cow and pig fat
who started the rumours and why is an open question. Have to concede that engineering the mutiny seems plausible, for a few reasons, it was too scattered to be of any use in overthrowing the government, it did allow them to consolidate their power, and they knew before hand about the concerns over religious sentiment being hurt if such cartridges were used. Still, little conspiracy-y

Im only interested in bashing the one sided view of the history textbooks. The end result is India good British bad, when the reality is that both sides did good and bad things. They talk of mistreatment, exploitation, mismanagement, but little word on any of the positive changes the Raj brought about, the education system for example. To be fair, there are two small paragraphs of Judicial System and economic systems. But for the most part there are sentences like "Wherever the British had established their power in India, people had to suffer the ill-effects of British governance."  Im not saying what the Britishers did was right, but for every wrong step they took, there were criticisms from their contemporaries who condemned these actions, which is left out. It is the general bias against even good things the British did, which at times can give out horribly wrong messages. For example

"The British rulers interfered in many traditions and customs in the Indian society. They made acts like the Sati prevention act, and the act of allowing widow-marriages. People thought that the alien government was trying to destroy their way of life by passing such acts. They resented it."


----------



## rachitrt23 (Nov 12, 2015)

Fair enough. If i remember it right there were many instances of British people in my history book(NCERT one) who condemned what was being done to Indians. Though its not a large share but many such instances do exist and i think that's a fair distribution.


----------



## rachitrt23 (Nov 12, 2015)

But don't you think that this fair share given to the home country is present in every corner of the world? As i said if anyone wanna learn more they will do their own research.


----------



## rachitrt23 (Nov 12, 2015)

Also about that sati prevention act i do think Britishers wer praised in our text books.


----------

