History of Medieval India - Satish Chandra

It is another textbook. Detailed, dense, filled with pertinent and some very startling (had read opposing perspectives all my life) information which is shared in the same tonality as sharing dates, events etc. What I mean is, there is no space in his textbook for sensationalism, just stating of conclusions he reached based on research. I liked the fact that I was allowed to make a big deal of what struck as important to me. It was nice. Also it absolutely doesn't mean that the book didn't transport me to Medieval India, I was there. And made a list to visit and re-visit some of the places with this new found perspective. The structure is very straightforward - the rulers, the connection between them, the battles, the social life, economies, religion and culture that was propagated in those times.

Two things I took away from this reading - timelines & parallelism of history and starkly opposing data about many things that I assumed were 'facts'. Throughout the book, I would let out a wtf ever so often - furiously pace the room, mumble, do some googling and come back to the reading again. I see my old age quite clearly, thank you very much.

Also Medieval times has taken a different meaning altogether - clearly many wonderful but also terrible things were happening in the land of Hindustan.

First thing - Who was around when: not complete by any stretch of imagination but helps in building parallel perspective.

Second thing - mind blown by (as shared by author, I haven't built my point of view yet, its only my first book on this period):

1. No evidence of Jodha and Akbar being a couple, existing evidence has a Jodha married to Salim - obviously can't be Salim's mother as told by the Gowarikar version, he was 2 years older than Jodha.

2. No evidence of Prithviraj Chauhan and Samyukta's hyper romantic story either.

3. Ramayana and Mahabharata 'rewritten' in the Gupta period. Really? To accommodate what?

4. Chand Bibi, sister of Burhan Shah played a huge role in ruling, negotiating with the Mughals and fighting. First time I am hearing of her.

5. Not all Muslims were horrid and not all Hindus were innocent - we had a mix then as we do now - he emphasises this point over and over again - I think this is the reason he pops up as Marxist/'progressive left' historian in a google search. My conclusion; the rule that was followed by the rulers - first power and then riches (many a time it came together) and finally religion - 'we (as the powerful) will use and become what ever that is needed in order to get what we think we deserve', Wah. A rule that till today is unbroken.

6. Birbal was a king and an extremely good friend of Akbar, he was killed during a skirmish that took place by the east bank of the river Indus - the author mentions this 3 times throughout the book, wonder why?

7. Structuring of life and governance was sophisticated, benefitted the ones it needed to benefit. The poor were worse off then as they are now.

8. Science and new inventions didn't reach us much in those days - most rulers did not pay attention to it. For example, land was plenty but agricultural practices were quite ancient.

9. Rich and diverse culture. Indian courts were open to noble men (yup, only men) from across the world and many ended up putting roots in our land and adding to the already existing mad diversity.

10. The one consistent thing was war. If a ruler took his eyes off of one side of the land, someone would come take it or take it back (yup, cause it was taken from them before). And the foreign elements were a constant threat - multiple battles.

This book is recommended for the UPSC (Union Public Service Commission) exam. My suggestion is, watch the videos - many, many coaching centres and individuals have made videos of the text (summaries, main points etc.), just know that most of the videos I skimmed through were as neutral as the book.

It is my first foray into understanding Medieval Indian history - I have many more perspectives to read but for now I have a timeline.

Pondering:

If it isn’t documented, it doesn't mean it didn’t happen. Just because it was documented and corroborated doesn’t mean all the possible perspectives were covered - 'facts' and 'impact' of the times are two separate things. My limited understanding of history tells me that we are still paying attention to the first - what happened when and who did what but I believe how it impacted everyone including the story teller is where life is. Just because we aren’t actively talking about it doesn’t mean it’s not important or didn’t happen.

Is that why we, to this day, fight to tell everyone what we think? Do we believe if we don’t say it doesn’t exist? Who writes most, screams the loudest, prefers not to listen - is in power and is the storyteller? If I tried to convince someone from the future that there were many of us who weaned ourselves from the incessant need to share our life online and with others, would they believe it? The 'facts' would point otherwise!

We have a tough ask of history.

A day after posting the blog, I picked up my next book, 'The Last Queen', and Divakaruni starts with a quote by Chinua Acebe, 'Until the lions have their historians, the history of the hunt will always glorify the hunter'. And people say the universe has stopped sending signs.