I suggest you study history a little bit. Here’s a good starting point for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Hindus.

There is nothing disingenuous about my statement. If anything, I have gone to great lengths to note that the past is the past, and that today’s people should not be tried for the crimes of fanatic conquerors who most likely also oppressed their forbears as well. However, that does not mean that history should be whitewashed and forgotten. It is this history that is often conveniently forgotten or manipulated in modern debates.

More tragically, we see this in modern day Pakistan and Bangladesh, with the entire hindu community virtually wiped out in the former and on a similar trajectory in the latter. While it is well and good that the UN has time to equate caste discrimination with human rights abuse, how is it that it doesn’t even have time to draw attention to the ongoing genocide there? And that is the crux of my point. Much has been made by leftist commentators here about “hindu grievance mongering”, but if genocide isn’t a legitimate cause then what is? The fact remains that just as you pointed out concerns regarding discussion of such a history in India and whether certain communities would accept it, we see the same head in the sand strategy on hindu genocide not only in the Indian press, but in the west. The fact remains, one cannot pretend to be an “advocate for human beings, not members of any one religious community” when one doesn’t live up to this in a manner anywhere near approaching consistency. So with respect to your point about whether certain communities would accept portrayals about Aurangzeb, et al, I refer you to my above statement: “secularism doesn’t mean only hindus have to be secular”. Just as caste discrimination must be studied, so should the violence of the Sultanate/Mughal period irrespective of what the related community may think or accept.

Ultimately, the aim of all this isn’t to stir up conflict, but rather, to put it to rest. As was pointed out, the African American community in the United States and the Native American population have tremendous grievances in the form of Slavery and Genocide. Nevertheless, the public education system there requires those topics to be studied to promote understanding on all sides and to prevent communal violence from taking form. India should take a page from that book.

Kumar,

I think we have to turn to the Mundaka Upanishad for this one: Satyameva jayate na anritham.

PS You are right on the importance of open discourse. Moreover, I do think it is critical that hindus examine how they treat each other (especially how dalit communities are treated). Frankly, I think some sort of dalit reconciliation commission should emerge within the Sangh Parivar if it truly is sincere about moving past caste (there are a number of individual Parivar members who have wholeheartedly rejected caste and its associated discrimination by dropping community-linked surnames such as Tarun Vijay). Discrimination and violence against dalits–predominantly in rural areas–is something very real that must be tackled. This is not meant to beat hinduism with a stick–after all, serfs in medieval europe were tied to the land and had little if any rights (especially those in Russia who needed the permission of nobles to marry); class is something that exists in all civilizations since a division of labor is a key aspect of societies. However, just as those societies modernized, it is time hindu society do the same. There is no need to be overly apologetic about the existence of the caste system, after all, unlike the west, hindus never practiced chattel slavery. As you noted, for many periods there was a significant degree of flexibility. This is where it is important to make the distinction between varna and jati (caste is derived from a portuguese word for pure). All the four varnas (but really five considering the contributions of dalits) had static roles to play in societies, but jatis (individual communities typically associated with a societal function) could move to different varnas depending on the specific occupation of its members. Frankly, the last word on such mobility of jatis has yet to be written and the historical evaluation of that aspect has only just begun. Nevertheless, there needs to be a recognition that like the patrician and plebeian classes of ancient Rome such divisions should have no place in modern Hindu society–at the very least in the form of discrimination.

Civil and human rights violations yes but populist violence rarely happens in the name of caste. If it happens the perpetrators are fringe groups and the majority generally disapproves of it.

From what I know and been exposed to (lots of South Asian anthropologists in history/political/anthro courses in college) I agree. I didn’t know what else to call it. What I meant by “caste system” is the discrimination (civil) civil and human rights violations, and violence perpetuated in the name of caste.

The problem is that the term “caste system” is hamfisted and imprecise. It doesn’t really summarize what people were talking about or put it in any sort of context. So people say “caste system OOGA BOOGA!” and end up lumping together several different concepts into one catch-all and then assume the whole thing is discriminatory on top of that without any real critical examination. It would be like saying the US should eliminate the “race system.” What would that even mean or entail? I’m not even sure it would be possible.

For now, India’s school curriculum should cover it as it is just because it’s better than ignoring it, but India’s academic community really ought to start trying to develop a better vocabulary and a more accurate paradigm to discuss the institution than they do now. They’re still parroting foreign viewpoints that haven’t been critically examined. That way, maybe sometime in the future we can have a more mature conversation on the issue that doesn’t get bogged down or compromised by shoddy semantics.

The comparison is good with how the holocaust and the World War II is studied in Germany or slavery in the US (though there should be an african-american museum in the nat’l mall) and perhaps also Native Americans in the US.

I don’t live in India, and don’t follow the news and politics that much, so I’m not sure what the answer is to this:

There should also be an open discourse (and museums and school lessons) on another way Indians degraded and subjugated other Indians – and that would be within the caste system. I know from my own historical background that often high-caste Hindus treated lower-caste Hindus worst than they treated Muslims or Christians.

That also should be an open discourse to help the country heal from that history, with museums documenting this history. But if that is already going on please enlighten. me. I also understand that there’s much more flexibility to caste system than is often protrayed in the West and its so diverse (a caste that considered low in area could be considered high in another, etc; there are castes that are specific to a region, etc)

OTOH, Yajnavalkya’s comment indicated to me that India/Indians should stop whitewashing the Hindu ‘holocaust’ during the Delhi Sultanate/Mughal era. May be an unwitting case of ‘Yadbhaavam tadbhavati?

Lets see what Yajnavalkya himself says

My friend you do make some good points. But you cannot compare unfortunate incidents in Indian history to the Holocaust. That is just disingenuous hyperbole. Which country in the world has not had ugly incidents in its history? And Indian history cannot be studied with the delicacy of the Holocaust, its not analogous because there are few Jews in Germany while there are millions of Muslims in India. Do you think they will swallow a negative portrayal of Aurangzeb? You know well as I do they will not. But your overall idea seems to be to prepare unwitting Hindus for some sort of Islamic aggrandizement. But Hindus, especially the north Indian variety, are not pacifists (remember the Partition?) and they hold key choke-points of economic and political power in India. So don’t worry they can do a good job of holding progress of already backward communities to ransom on the grounds of history.

Thanks for the detailed response.I did not miss the sarcasm in your first comment.Just wanted to place your statement in the overall discursive framework.

I honestly don’t see a posibility for Indians (both resident and the diaspora) to learn to see the Mughal period or the Delhi sultanate the way for example one sees the holocaust in Germany, or how Iranians see the genocide of Parsis.Even the British era is now seen in the nuanced manner it deserves.But not the Mughal era.Over 200 years of received understanding won’t go away just like that.Unless the Govt exits the realm of deciding the content of the text books and leaves it to the market place of ideas.

There is no reason why associated religious violence and repression from the Sultanate and Mughal eras can be treated in the same manner–after all, Zoroastrianism wasn’t extirpated in Iran by peaceful seaborne traders…

There is no reason why….can’t be treated…