As
a result of this reconstructed Hindu nationalism, "the
demand for full independence was for the first time understood by
great numbers of Indians, and a sincere pride in the Indian heritage
made that demand into more than an academic assertion of natural
rights."
As I see it, our history of the past
two centuries has been the history of the rise of Hindus after a
lapse of centuries of Muslim invasions and rule. This is a wholly
revisionist view of history and would be resisted by the dominant
elite which has both made history in this period and written it. But
precisely because mine is a radical departure, it merits being spelt
out even if it is possible to do so only in bold strokes. I regard
the task urgent in view of the havoc that history, as written and
taught, has wrought.
The Hindu re-emergence took place
under the auspices of the British, which is one reason why the
phenomenon has not been seen to be what it has, in fact, been. The
British disarmed the peasantry and established the rule of law; they
ensured that education and commercial enterprise (and not the sword)
would be the gateways to success and prosperity. These measures were
a handicap for the Muslim elite which had all along relied on the
sword to establish and sustain its hegemony.
|