[Assam] some stuff for himendra-da

[Chan Mahanta]

>no group, ethnic or
>religious, is collectively responsible today for
>incidents in the past.



*** Very important point!   Those who cannot fathom it are the people 
who perpetrate racial violence or religious pogroms and attempt to 
label whole groups of people as 'invaders' six hundred years after 
the fact.








At 1:23 PM -0800 3/7/06, xourov pathok wrote:
>Himendra Thakur said:
>
>>  The jailed British historian David Irving's
>>  opinion that "most Jews died of diseases
>>  during World War II" sounds very similar
>>  to what one correspondent said in Assamnet
>>  implicitly absolving the Islamic invaders
>>  of any responsibility of Hindu women's death
>>  in Jauhar Vrata, because, according to this
>>  correspondent, Hindus killed their own wives
>>  and daughters as a "scorched earth policy".
>>  This correspondent did neither furnish any
>>  evidence nor did he state whether the scenario
>>  was his assumption. Under what circumstances a
>>  man kills his own daughter and wife instead of
>>  protecting them?
>
>dear himendra-da:
>
>in c1298, the bhati rajputs in jaisalmer were
>surrounded by ulugh khan.  the bhati rajputs were on
>the trade route and they lived off taxing the
>caravans, sometimes attacking them.  the foolhardy
>bhati rajputs once made off with the khilji caravan
>belonging to the delhi sultanate, and as a result they
>were surrounded.  according to the rajput ballads the
>seize lasted for 7 years and the bhati rajputs saw no
>escape.  the rawal consulted the elders and this is
>what they decided: the women and children were put to
>death, by fire or sword (jauhar) and then the men put
>on ceremonial dresses and opium-intoxicated, opened
>the gates and rushed out to a heroic deaths (shaka).
>
>that was probably one of the first instances of
>jauhar.  the scorched earth policy is staring you
>right in the face and the story is a part of the
>rajput lore. 
>
>it might interest you that the bhati rawal's children
>did not die in that jauhar.  they were spirited out,
>and lived to reclaim jaisalmer later.  there is an
>amusing anecdote associated with how they might have
>survived.
>
>in c1634, jujhar singh bundela was trying to escape
>the wrath of the mughal emperor shah jahan.  he did
>not have time to set the women-folk on fire, so he put
>some of them to the sword.  he was finally killed,
>though.  there are accounts of this incident too.
>
>as time went on, the system of jauhar took on
>sati-like characteristics.  some later rajput kings
>had their queens, concubines and slave-girls immolated
>at their funerals (17th century).  these incidents too
>are very well documented. 
>
>you might also reflect a little on the origin of the
>word jauhar.  it is said to come from the word
>jatugriha---a house of lac.  the imagery is---the
>women and children are put in a house, which is then
>sealed and put to fire. 
>
>if you need more pointers, you only need to ask.  this
>"correspondent" is always happy to oblige!
>
>-xourov
>post-script: care must be taken when we discuss
>incidents of the past that seem to come into conflict
>with contemporary sensibilities.  if we offer
>judgements, we lose objectivity.  what the rajputs or
>other demographic groups did in the past should not be
>held against them in the present.  no group, ethnic or
>religious, is collectively responsible today for
>incidents in the past.
>
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>_______________________________________________
>assam mailing list
>assam at assamnet.org
>http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.assamnet.org/pipermail/assam-assamnet.org/attachments/20060307/551ad4b3/attachment.htm>