I think Mr Sampath's parallel between Indian Muslims sentiments towards Islamic rulers and Indian Christians' sentiments towards British rulers is nonsensical. first of all, i agree that as a counterfactual, may be India's post-1947 state-builders should have rejected this idea that uncomfortable truths about Hindu-Muslim conflicts pre-1947 should not be revealed and discussed in public. But, for that to be done, a risk would have to be assessed: could you trust India's public at any point to not blame present day Muslims for atrocities of medieval and early modern islamic rulers? was it a risk worth taking in a country where massive illiteracy, bigotry, communal hatred and readiness to kill fellow citizens already prevailed? If yes, then he is right. If not, I think it is for the good of the country that these issues are being discussed today, may be now is the right time. My question is, most of these historians still speak in the language of the elite minority: English. Would they like to talk about all these uncomfortable truths in regions where communal passions still burn very much and if the people dont pay attention to this kind of research, it is is largely because these authors are essentially speaking Khan Market level English which very few commoners can grasp? Their simple question to the author would be: Sir, great research but i have a job to do and a family to feed so please tell me in yes or no - should i kill my neighbour who is not Hindu or should i let him be? Back to the nonsensical parallel I mentioned at first: Indian muslims grow up believing that they are part of one of the world's great religions, with its shrines in the Arab region, and truly look up to Islamic rulers not only as sarkaari maai baap of past but also as crusaders of a great religion, who built great architecture, won victories, nurtured fine arts such as Hindustani sangeet, etc etc. Do Indian Christians actually feel such an umbilical connect with Lord Warren Hastings or Queen Victoria or King George that they would be so hurt if British rule was criticized? What evidence is there for this? And are Christians India's 2nd largest majority? Are they followers of such Christian sects which can motivate them to start riots? Fortunately not. So until the day India as a country has managed to make its Muslim population liberal, progressive, educated and mainstreamed, you are just willingly provoking a dangerous emotion everytime it appears to have gone quiet for a while. Fun fact is that it is India's non-Christian majority like Hindus (and Sikhs, Jains, etc) which worships the Christian West because it offers a chance to escape the motherland and settle abroad where finally they can speak english in the accent they always fantasized about since their Convent school and St Stephens/Xaviers/Francis/etc days.
India's Muslim population is secular than any other population Christian try to convert Hindu again and again Tipu Sultan fight for the sake of this country Mr Sampath ise sangi it was only because of the Mughal Empire British were not able to conquer India soon
His comparison may be "nonsensical" from the perspective that YOU describe (and for what it's worth, I don't think you are wrong either), but there is a glaring contradiction that Sampath is addressing that you are completely missing. Let's address that. So going by your logic at face value, how is it fair that Christians in India have no affinity towards any Western colonizing power (and that's a good thing), while Muslims in India do have (for the reasons AKA "brainwashing" you mentioned above) such an undying affinity towards the brutal Islamic marauders (all foreign) who ravaged India and adjoining areas for almost 1400 years? How is it acceptable that people who are born and raised in India have such an undying love for the invaders who were bent on destroying hindu civilization? Your next argument that "Christians in India are not violent, so it's OK to belittle Western colonialists" is also not a serious argument, because, first off, as you described, Indian Christians have no affinity whatsoever to Western colonialists. If you belittle Western colonialist powers, almost all Indian Christians would AGREE with you. And second, Indian Christians are simply not a violent people (it's not in their ideology in any way). So by your logic, since Muslims are a violent people who'll resort to violence if their "idols" are denigrated, we should grin and bear it and join them in venerating the Islamic marauders they venerating (or at least remain mum about it). We should suck-up to the Muslims because they're illiberal and violent, and we can offend the Christians as much as we want because Christians are liberal and peaceful. How is that logical?
@@disdoncable You are right in the last para. It is not logical. And that is why I did not even leave it to guesswork when I clearly mentioned the desirable state the majority of Indian muslims should attain for historians to reason with them and wean them away from blind idolization of the past rulers in the name of Islam, while they were as violent and ruthless as any other colonial powers and only exploited religion for legitimacy. The rest in your last para is what you are insinuating I meant. Once again, my argument does not logically lead to the recommendation you are guessing it does: we should grin and bear etc etc. And the Muslims are not necessarily a violent people. By the measure of insulted/destroyed idols inciting them to violence, any other community can and has engaged in violence, including Hindus. My point is about the end one is seeking. If I as a historian seek open dialogue, I can not bemoan the fact that closed minded masses are not listening to me. There are Muslim scholars who would listen to me (you know many names as I do, e.g. Arif Md Khan, MJ Akbar, etc.) and there are those who would wholeheartedly agree with me that even they want the same end state as I would. Who is sucking up to Muslims? At the policy level, if our politicians have sucked up to illiberal Muslims, I agree with you and we too are responsible for permitting vote bank politics and appeasement politics to carry on in our country. The current swing to its opposite political extreme/end may serve as a corrective to that (although I don't agree that it is without any adverse effects, dangers and real damage to India's body politic). But at grassroots, do we suck up to Muslims? I certainly don't, and I dont see it happening around me in industry, agriculture, urban or rural areas. We are outcompeting them, isolating them, demonizing them and whenever possible aggressively brutalizing them. If that leads to mainstreaming and liberalizing the Muslims, I would wholeheartedly support that.
@@disdoncable To your point about Christians. I gave an argument where I questioned the author's logic behind drawing parallels. You have taken my "logic at face value". That is not in good faith and leads to straw manning my views to express your own angst. You are right because it is neither fair nor acceptable from many points of view including political and that of nation-building. But it is not fair to whom? To the British govt that Christians do not admire them and get hurt if Brits are insulted? I asked if it is sensible to compare a community which is far more backward and easy to exploit and incite to a community which is far more wealthy, educated, and not so easy to incite? Christians are not a non-violent community per se. Their threshold for mass violence is way higher because of their socio-economic status, Western tendencies as well as the overall treatment they receive from Hindus because of their Western tendencies. If US, Canada, Australia and UK tomorrow guaranteed citizenship to Christian converts, we would see something interesting happening among Hindus too. But if Saudi, Iran, UAE etc did the same, I dont think it would have the same effect on Hindus.
Vikram Sampath’s new book on Tipu Sultan, sprawling across roughly 1,000 pages, is a glaring example of how history can be manipulated to serve ideological agendas. The inaccuracies and selective interpretations in this work are disheartening and make a mockery of genuine historical scholarship. What adds salt to the wound is the foreword by S.L. Byrappa, an author whose novels I once admired. His association with this book tarnishes his legacy and reflects a disappointing compromise of intellectual standards. Sampath’s portrayal reeks of bias, reflecting his alignment with caste-driven, Hindu-supremacist ideologies that foster animosity toward Muslim rulers. His past works, such as those glorifying Savarkar, reveal him as a mouthpiece for the Modi-BJP ecosystem. Instead of presenting a balanced view that acknowledges both the good and bad aspects of Tipu Sultan’s rule, Sampath positions himself as a master chain dog, barking to please his political masters and their blind followers. This is not the work of a historian but of an ideological propagandist. It’s particularly infuriating that Sampath relies on the assumption that many Indians, due to lack of time or resources, will not dig deep into the references and counter his claims. However, he underestimates the global community of scholars who can easily dismantle his distorted narratives in any credible debate. As a Hindu and a scholar, I find it shameful that such venomous rhetoric is being passed off as historical research. Writers should aim to be broad-minded and present a balanced perspective, not peddle hatred to further political or ideological agendas. This trend among some Indian writers is why Indian research and findings are often dismissed globally. Works like these reinforce the perception that India, with its divisive tendencies, is unfit to truly embody the principles of democracy. This book is an insult to scholarship, and I refuse to let its venom pollute my mind. What a shame for Indian writing and history.
Tipu Sultan jindabad Shere Mysore jindabad
Tipu Sultan jindabad
Anyone who is opposing Mr sampath's work kindly read the book first and do it by the facts not by mere rhetoric
I think Mr Sampath's parallel between Indian Muslims sentiments towards Islamic rulers and Indian Christians' sentiments towards British rulers is nonsensical.
first of all, i agree that as a counterfactual, may be India's post-1947 state-builders should have rejected this idea that uncomfortable truths about Hindu-Muslim conflicts pre-1947 should not be revealed and discussed in public. But, for that to be done, a risk would have to be assessed: could you trust India's public at any point to not blame present day Muslims for atrocities of medieval and early modern islamic rulers? was it a risk worth taking in a country where massive illiteracy, bigotry, communal hatred and readiness to kill fellow citizens already prevailed? If yes, then he is right. If not, I think it is for the good of the country that these issues are being discussed today, may be now is the right time.
My question is, most of these historians still speak in the language of the elite minority: English. Would they like to talk about all these uncomfortable truths in regions where communal passions still burn very much and if the people dont pay attention to this kind of research, it is is largely because these authors are essentially speaking Khan Market level English which very few commoners can grasp? Their simple question to the author would be: Sir, great research but i have a job to do and a family to feed so please tell me in yes or no - should i kill my neighbour who is not Hindu or should i let him be?
Back to the nonsensical parallel I mentioned at first: Indian muslims grow up believing that they are part of one of the world's great religions, with its shrines in the Arab region, and truly look up to Islamic rulers not only as sarkaari maai baap of past but also as crusaders of a great religion, who built great architecture, won victories, nurtured fine arts such as Hindustani sangeet, etc etc. Do Indian Christians actually feel such an umbilical connect with Lord Warren Hastings or Queen Victoria or King George that they would be so hurt if British rule was criticized? What evidence is there for this? And are Christians India's 2nd largest majority? Are they followers of such Christian sects which can motivate them to start riots? Fortunately not. So until the day India as a country has managed to make its Muslim population liberal, progressive, educated and mainstreamed, you are just willingly provoking a dangerous emotion everytime it appears to have gone quiet for a while.
Fun fact is that it is India's non-Christian majority like Hindus (and Sikhs, Jains, etc) which worships the Christian West because it offers a chance to escape the motherland and settle abroad where finally they can speak english in the accent they always fantasized about since their Convent school and St Stephens/Xaviers/Francis/etc days.
India's Muslim population is secular than any other population Christian try to convert Hindu again and again Tipu Sultan fight for the sake of this country Mr Sampath ise sangi it was only because of the Mughal Empire British were not able to conquer India soon
His comparison may be "nonsensical" from the perspective that YOU describe (and for what it's worth, I don't think you are wrong either), but there is a glaring contradiction that Sampath is addressing that you are completely missing.
Let's address that. So going by your logic at face value, how is it fair that Christians in India have no affinity towards any Western colonizing power (and that's a good thing), while Muslims in India do have (for the reasons AKA "brainwashing" you mentioned above) such an undying affinity towards the brutal Islamic marauders (all foreign) who ravaged India and adjoining areas for almost 1400 years? How is it acceptable that people who are born and raised in India have such an undying love for the invaders who were bent on destroying hindu civilization?
Your next argument that "Christians in India are not violent, so it's OK to belittle Western colonialists" is also not a serious argument, because, first off, as you described, Indian Christians have no affinity whatsoever to Western colonialists. If you belittle Western colonialist powers, almost all Indian Christians would AGREE with you. And second, Indian Christians are simply not a violent people (it's not in their ideology in any way). So by your logic, since Muslims are a violent people who'll resort to violence if their "idols" are denigrated, we should grin and bear it and join them in venerating the Islamic marauders they venerating (or at least remain mum about it). We should suck-up to the Muslims because they're illiberal and violent, and we can offend the Christians as much as we want because Christians are liberal and peaceful. How is that logical?
@@disdoncable You are right in the last para. It is not logical. And that is why I did not even leave it to guesswork when I clearly mentioned the desirable state the majority of Indian muslims should attain for historians to reason with them and wean them away from blind idolization of the past rulers in the name of Islam, while they were as violent and ruthless as any other colonial powers and only exploited religion for legitimacy. The rest in your last para is what you are insinuating I meant. Once again, my argument does not logically lead to the recommendation you are guessing it does: we should grin and bear etc etc.
And the Muslims are not necessarily a violent people. By the measure of insulted/destroyed idols inciting them to violence, any other community can and has engaged in violence, including Hindus. My point is about the end one is seeking. If I as a historian seek open dialogue, I can not bemoan the fact that closed minded masses are not listening to me. There are Muslim scholars who would listen to me (you know many names as I do, e.g. Arif Md Khan, MJ Akbar, etc.) and there are those who would wholeheartedly agree with me that even they want the same end state as I would.
Who is sucking up to Muslims? At the policy level, if our politicians have sucked up to illiberal Muslims, I agree with you and we too are responsible for permitting vote bank politics and appeasement politics to carry on in our country. The current swing to its opposite political extreme/end may serve as a corrective to that (although I don't agree that it is without any adverse effects, dangers and real damage to India's body politic). But at grassroots, do we suck up to Muslims? I certainly don't, and I dont see it happening around me in industry, agriculture, urban or rural areas. We are outcompeting them, isolating them, demonizing them and whenever possible aggressively brutalizing them. If that leads to mainstreaming and liberalizing the Muslims, I would wholeheartedly support that.
@@disdoncable To your point about Christians. I gave an argument where I questioned the author's logic behind drawing parallels. You have taken my "logic at face value". That is not in good faith and leads to straw manning my views to express your own angst. You are right because it is neither fair nor acceptable from many points of view including political and that of nation-building. But it is not fair to whom? To the British govt that Christians do not admire them and get hurt if Brits are insulted? I asked if it is sensible to compare a community which is far more backward and easy to exploit and incite to a community which is far more wealthy, educated, and not so easy to incite? Christians are not a non-violent community per se. Their threshold for mass violence is way higher because of their socio-economic status, Western tendencies as well as the overall treatment they receive from Hindus because of their Western tendencies. If US, Canada, Australia and UK tomorrow guaranteed citizenship to Christian converts, we would see something interesting happening among Hindus too. But if Saudi, Iran, UAE etc did the same, I dont think it would have the same effect on Hindus.
Vikram Sampath’s new book on Tipu Sultan, sprawling across roughly 1,000 pages, is a glaring example of how history can be manipulated to serve ideological agendas. The inaccuracies and selective interpretations in this work are disheartening and make a mockery of genuine historical scholarship. What adds salt to the wound is the foreword by S.L. Byrappa, an author whose novels I once admired. His association with this book tarnishes his legacy and reflects a disappointing compromise of intellectual standards.
Sampath’s portrayal reeks of bias, reflecting his alignment with caste-driven, Hindu-supremacist ideologies that foster animosity toward Muslim rulers. His past works, such as those glorifying Savarkar, reveal him as a mouthpiece for the Modi-BJP ecosystem. Instead of presenting a balanced view that acknowledges both the good and bad aspects of Tipu Sultan’s rule, Sampath positions himself as a master chain dog, barking to please his political masters and their blind followers. This is not the work of a historian but of an ideological propagandist.
It’s particularly infuriating that Sampath relies on the assumption that many Indians, due to lack of time or resources, will not dig deep into the references and counter his claims. However, he underestimates the global community of scholars who can easily dismantle his distorted narratives in any credible debate.
As a Hindu and a scholar, I find it shameful that such venomous rhetoric is being passed off as historical research. Writers should aim to be broad-minded and present a balanced perspective, not peddle hatred to further political or ideological agendas. This trend among some Indian writers is why Indian research and findings are often dismissed globally. Works like these reinforce the perception that India, with its divisive tendencies, is unfit to truly embody the principles of democracy.
This book is an insult to scholarship, and I refuse to let its venom pollute my mind. What a shame for Indian writing and history.