The Historian’s Hero

While in school, when I learnt about Adolf Hitler, I noticed that he was being portrayed as the epitome of evil. This image of Adolf Hitler as an undisputed villain is ubiquitous all over the world, to the point that anyone denying the holocaust can be put behind bars in Europe. To me, this overtly emphatic discourse somehow appeared to be a prejudiced exaggeration. There surely had to be something about this man who pulled out Germany from the utter collapse it suffered in World War I and the consequent Treaty of Versailles and made her strong and competent enough to initiate an entire World War yet again! Hence, to give the devil his due, I purchased a copy of Mein Kamph from Planet M to understand the other side of the story. So impressed was I with his views on democracy and certain other social issues that for many years hence my email address was parvez_hitler@yahoo.co.in; not out of some love for Adolf per se, but as a mark of protest against the systematic domonisation of a person who allegedly persecuted the Jews. I could not help but read a Zionist conspiracy into all this. The global media, after all, is controlled by the Jewry. Why only he, why not Stalin, why not Churchill? Winston Churchill himself had answered this question when he had once said, “History would always be kind to me, because I intend to write it”.

History is always written by the victor, by the victor's historians. History is but a biased version of an event. History is a political tool to support and substantiate a state-sponsored propaganda. Tipu Sultan, respected as a freedom fighter here was rejected as a terrorist in Great Britain. The British Government was required to justify their attack on Mysore by branding Tipu Sultan a terrorist, and that is exactly what they did. And for the same reason, what Indian History calls the First War of Independence, British History calls the Sepoy Mutiny of 1857. Public opinion is still managed and tamed today on the same lines. So, India would have one version of whatever is happening in Kashmir and our neighbour would have the exact opposite version to dish out to their audience. It's a narrative, nothing else. Whom we call separatists they call freedom fighters, whom we call militants they call Mujahideen!

Reminds me of a very interesting Hindi chapter we had read in school- ‘Mahabharat Ki Ek Saanjh’. It was the screenplay of a drama by the same name. The scene was set in the night. The Battle of Mahabharat had just concluded. Duryodhan, the leader and eldest brother of the Kauravas was lying on the ground counting his last breaths when Yudhisthira, the leader and eldest brother of the Pandavas comes to him and they have a dialogue. We have always been made to believe that the Kauravas were evil personified and that the Pandavas were symbolic of Dharma. But that, it turns out, is simply because it was the Pandavas who had won the war and subsequently drafted the history we are fed today.

Duryodhan tells Yudhisthira that his father Dhritirashtra, being the elder brother, was the rightful heir to the Hastinapur throne and not Pandu. It was only because of his visual handicap that Pandu was offered the throne and after Pandu’s death, the throne was back with its actual claimant. This makes Duryodhan the heir to the throne and not Yudhisthira. This makes the entire war illegal, an attempt to usurp the Kauravas’ right, which the Pandavas are guilty of.

He also tells Yudhisthira that they had even offered them Indraprastha, but it was their avarice and greed that took it away from them in the game of dice. The Pandavas even bet their own wife in the gamble and eventually lost her. This was not expected of any self-respecting man. And since the Kauravas had now won Draupadi, Dushasan's attempt to disrobe her should not have raised eyebrows.

Coming back to the battle, Duryodhan argues that had the Kauravas been in the wrong, Sri Krishna would never have offered them his Royal Army. This itself suggests that Dharma was on their side.

He also accuses the Pandavas of killing all the commanders of the Kaurava Army by deceit. Duryodhan was himself hit below the belt by Bhima. Dronacharya, their teacher, was fooled into believing that his son Akshadhama had been killed, when actually an elephant by that name was deliberately killed. This news left Dronacharya into mourning and he was killed in that disarmed state. Bhishma, their uncle, was also killed by making him put down his arms in front of a half-lady, Shikhandi. Karna, their half brother was killed by deceit when he was repairing his chariot. Why, even his protective armour was taken away from him by Kunti before the battle, even though Kunti was his own mother! The only justification the Pandavas had was that Abhimanyu was outnumbered and killed in the Chakravyu. But Abhimanyu, Duryodhan argues, went inside the Chakravyu with half baked knowledge, without knowing how to exit it. Why did the Pandavas put their child's life in peril in the first place?

And yes, Duryodhan and Dushasan were not their actual names either. No father keeps negative names for his children. Their names were Suyodhan and Susashan, but historians have corrupted it to their opposite meaning to create a negative image of these princes whose only fault was that they lost the battle to the usurpers.

Many such examples can be found all over ‘history’. History, my friend, is but a perspective. It is for you to decide which perspective you want to agree to.

- Dr. Parvez Mandviwala