Firstpost quotes “Pratap’s raison d’etre in history is his three-decade war against somebody as mighty as Akbar, he is a hero because he didn’t except the powerful Mughal ruler’s suzerainty. Had Akbar been a minnow, Pratap too would have been a non-entity”
Alright so that’s an amazing way to jump to a conclusion. Let me decode the syntax for you.
Characters: The Usurper and the Fighter
Situation: The Usurper usurps the fighter’s land/throne, the fighter fights back. His victory is not guaranteed but his heroism is.
Conclusion: The fighter is a hero because the usurper usurped. Had usurper not been a usurper, the fighter wouldn’t have been a hero.
With this logic we can decode almost any historical or even mythical figures.
Gandhiji is not great because he revolted against the British regime. He is great because the British usurped India which made Gandhiji revolt against them. Had the British been peaceful traders, Gandhi would have been a non-entity. Apply the same logic to Bhagat Singh, Subhash Chandra Bose, Chandra Shekhar Azad and every single freedom fighter. Also, Rama is not great he slayed Ravana. He is great because Ravana gave him an opportunity to slay him by abducting Sita. Had Ravana been a sage, Rama would have been a non-entity. Apply this logic to Krishna, Shiva and every single god.
Amusing, isn’t it? Great heroes look the best when they are pitted against great villains but to credit the entire heroism of the hero to the villain is tomfoolery of the highest kind. All of the world’s history is either an action or reaction. You either attack or counter-attack.
It is alright to criticize communal motives, and moves intended to polarize people. But going to any extent to disapprove a not-so-favorite politician’s stand by coming up with absurd logics is not what is expected of journalists. The truth remains that Maharana Pratap is an under-celebrated and Akbar is an over celebrated historical figure and Pratap deserves his rightful place in History. The world needs to know about the glorious Hindu warriors as well. Samrat Hemchandra Vikramditya is represented as “Hemu died in the second battle of Panipat” in our history books. Such was Hemu’s terror that Akbar and Bairam Khan chose not to enter the battle field. Lachit Borphukan defeated the Mughals attackers thrice, Veer Kunwar Singh brought the British Royal cross down twice, the legs of British Commanders wobbled like rickety furniture on the mere mention of Veerapandiya Kattabomman’s name. The truth is that most of these “heroes” have either been represented unfairly or haven’t been represented at all. It’s time we call a spade a spade. Let us call things by their proper names and remember people by their actual deeds without any “beating about the bush”.
