Violence in Indian historical process

[Vidyasankar Sundaresan]

>The Shringeri Mutt was indeed looted by Raghunathrao Nilkanth, but the
>motive was military and political more than doctrinal. I know this because
>I happen to be a direct descendant of Raghunathrao. He wanted the
>extradition of Tipu's men who had apparently sought and received asylum
>inside the Mutt from the Shankaracharya. On receiving a refusal from the
>conspiring Shankaracharya to his demand, he forced his way in and took
>possession of the men and the loot they had carried with them.

I wanted to respond to Rohan Oberoi, telling him to mention the
Sringeri Sankaracharya Matha, so as to not leave his reference
to Tipu Sultan incomplete.

But you, Mr. Patwardhan, forget one important point, as did your
ancestor. A man who sought asylum from a monastery was inviolate,
so long as he stayed within the bounds of the institution. This
is not much different from an analogous European situation, when
people obtained refuge in Christian monasteries, which were then
raided and looted by their pursuers. Granting refuge to anybody
who asked for it was an ideal of the monastic view of life, and
the Hindu monks did not discriminate against Muslim supplicants.
There was no conspiracy on the part of the Sringeri Sankaracharya
against the Hindu Marathas. He simply fulfilled his duty, and did
what was right, without regard to consequences. If you think that
a Hindu monk should have handed over a Muslim asylum-seeker to his
political and military opponents, who just happened to be Hindus,
you are fundamentally wrong. So also if you think that the monk's
refusal excused the Hindu warrior's action of force against the
monastery. Read the legends of Parasurama, Vasishtha, Viswamitra.
dharmo rakshati rakshita.h. Those who care about protecting Hindu
dharma today should first learn a little about basic dharma.

And if you care to study your own family history in more detail,
the Peshwas in Pune did not like the way Patwardhan dealt with
the Sringeri temples. Letters of apology were written and a few
reparations were made to the Sankaracharya by both Sultan and
Peshwa. Historians like to quote Tipu's letters, because he was
Muslim. The letters written by a Hindu ruler to a Hindu monk do
not attract much attention. In fact, if you care to check the
records, you will find that just a generation before Tipu, the
Peshwa had invited the Sringeri Sankaracharyas to tour in the
Maharashtra region. For a number of years within the same period
of time, the Sringeri Sankaracharyas visited the kingdoms ruled
by Peshwas, Bhonsales, Shindes and Holkars.

As for Venkataraman Iyer's oh-so-innocent question, the Marathas
who patronized the Kumbhakonam Matha, that has now grown into the
Kanchi Matha, were from the Tanjavur collateral line, who were
always at loggerheads with their cousins in Maharashtra proper.
It is stupid to think that the Sringeri-Kanchi polarization was
related to a conflict between a Muslim Sultan in Mysore and a
Hindu Raja in Tanjavur. It is stupid to think that the Sringeri
Sankaracharyas had somehow betrayed Hindus by behaving humanely
with a Muslim. Pay attention to details, gentlemen. The devil is
always in the details.

Vidyasankar

_____________________________________________________________________________________
Get more from the Web.  FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com