Standing in Angkor Wat – the world’s largest religious monument- the realization dawns on me that Indian history has neither been adequately documented nor properly written. Here are a fabulous collection of temples – replete with tales from Ramayana and Mahabharata etched on its walls – that lie 2500 km from the south Indian shores, as the crow flies. The temple complex – brilliant by all accord – was built in the 12th century by the local king Suryavaraman in a place that was named Yeshodharapura but subsequently renamed Angkor. If all the names sound so Indian, then don’t be surprised: the king was by descent related to the Cholas who ruled from present day Tamil Nadu. Our local guide Arjun tells us that Angkor Wat is Vishnu loka, the abode of the preserver of the universe. It later became a Buddhist temple and even today the idols of the Sakyamuni adorn the temple and are worshipped daily here in Cambodia.
In fact the entire stretch of South East Asia from Indonesia to Cambodia is strewn with remains of Indian influence. Travelers would not have missed that Bangkok’s airport is called Suvarnabhoomi and the entrance of the airport depicts Amrit Manthan,the churning of the sea by devas to extract the elixir of life. The Indian influence in Indonesia –whose tourist haven of Bali is a Hindu majority province, is something that is fairly well known.
But the Indian history lessons taught in our schools and colleges depict nothing of this Hindu, Buddhist and ancient Indian influence on this region. Instead all that it depicts is the continual invasion of India from north-west borders and how hordes upon hordes entered and pillaged the plains of Hindustan. Soon these invading armies started settling in the regions around Delhi and thus begun the Delhi sultanate. This was followed by the Mughals whose 180 year rule between 1530 and 1707 was the high-water mark of Indian prosperity in medieval India. Everybody in India has been exposed to Akbar and in college studying economic history (as a side course in Economics) I was exposed to the agrarian revenue system of the Mughals and how it was established by the great Mughal. I also learnt that agricultural productivity in those days was high, in fact higher than pre green revolution levels.
But how many have heard of the great Cholas and their emperors Rajaraja I and Rajendra Chola ? Even, if our movers and shakers have heard of them, it is just the name. For those who came in late, the Cholas in their heydays controlled peninsular India – which means the entire south of India and had gone up to Kalinga. More importantly using their naval forces the Cholas had extended into present day Malaysia and southern Thailand, not to mention Sri Lanka and Maldives. It was thus a huge empire that extended out of present day India.
They could easily rival the Mughals, although their heyday was between the ninth and the thirteenth century. This was 300 years earlier than the Mughals whose territories extended from the North West frontier province of present day Pakistan to present day Bangladesh in the east. Interestingly the Cholas were ruling south India around the time that the Mahmud of Ghazni was pillaging Somnath- something that he did many times.
The Mughals controlled the whole chunk of north India but met their waterloo in the Deccan. Aurungzeb, the last major Mughal emperor spent 25 years of his 49 year reign trying to conquer the Deccan and could not move south of Golconda (present day Hyderabad). Hyderabad is the southern- most part of central India or is northern part of south India.
Unlike the Mughals who had little maritime interests (in fact if the Mughals were a naval force, the English and the Europeans would never have been successful in penetrating India so easily), the Cholas were a maritime power and promoted overseas trade. Trade was organized through merchant guilds. The Cholas also had an efficient bureaucracy and had a centralized administration. The economy and agriculture flourished and trade relations extended to countries as far off as the Chinese.
The stability brought in by the Mughals in north India brought in wanderers from distant lands: Iran, Turkey and present Central Asian republics. The Mughals themselves came in from these regions. The wanderers came in search of fortunes and most of them settled in India. So there was import of foreign influences and people into India, albeit in course of time these people became indigenous and created a composite culture. But contrast them with the Cholas: the Cholas were exporting Indian influence creating a heritage abroad. The role of Buddhism cannot be overemphasized in the context of exporting Indian influence. Little wonder that H G Wells in his Short History of the World has said that by his posthumous impact Gautam Buddha was the great Indian ever born.
The problem with Indian history is that it is too Delhi centric. Since the English came after the Mughals (who ruled from the Delhi/ Agra region), they also followed the footsteps of the latter. The first English capital was in Calcutta, a town erected by them but when the Bengali babus became seditious they shifted to Delhi. They wanted to inherit the mantle of the Mughals and be more acceptable in India. From the climes of Delhi, the south is far off and this has impacted on the writing of Indian history.
It is time that Indian history is rewritten with emphasis on hitherto neglected regions. This will bring out the un-emphasized facets of India’s past and Indian glory overseas. Such a history will treat the Taj Mahal at par with the Angkor Wat and claim the latter as part of Indian heritage.
Source : The Times of India Blogs
