From Liberhan to Rutherford: The Baburaization of Indian secular polity and society
Just after M. M. S. Liberhan, Alex Ruterford has come with his book “EMPIRE OF THE MOGHUL — Raiders from the North”! As its price is Rs. 450/-, ordinary Indian cannot buy and read to know its implication forced on Indians at a particular time and place. I am one of such poor Indians and I have been provoked to see its review in “The Hindu” today by one Ziya Us Salam.
Babar, Baburi and Babri Masjid: Indians have been thus taught about the nuances of these words and remember the slavery life and to continue mentally by imposing such stuff through the media then and there. Rutherford introduces Zahiruddin Muhammad Babur as hold wine parties and writing memories all the way! The reviewer Ziya Us Salam tells us, “the author’s fine comb not leaving many strands unexplored…….. Rutherford is selective, and prefers subtleties when candour would have been better. But that is the way he writes; very little spade-for-spade talk here. Euphemism is his durable companion. But he retains the essence as he seeks to give an account of Babur’s life, not so much as a political figure, but as a man whose interests went beyond the usual”.
Babar and his women: From Mahmud Gaznavi to Lodhis and thereafter, the Mohammedans of all sorts – moors, Mongols, mughals turks, turukshas or with whatever name, they were called they had eye on Indian women and their atrocities cannot be described. However, the modern writers mystify, suppress and secularisze. Thus, we could note that the reviewer goes on, “Rutherford gives us durable insights into Babur’s life; the important role that women played in his life……..”, but stops. When Gazni and others have the notorious ways of eliminating Hindus from Central Asia – at Kafiristan, Brahmanabad, Hindukush etc., the mughals had harem and sham marriages to rape Indian / Hindu women. Babar had many wives – more than a dozen, concubines – mote than few dozens uncluding Circassan slaves gifted by Shah Tahmasp. However, I do not know as to whether Rutherford mentioned it or the reviewer has not reviewed it.
Jodha Akbar, Love-Jihad, Baburization: Whenever, the Mohammedan atrocities, heinous crimes and evil acts are revealed, the propaganda of whitewashing their crimes and negationism start with all means. Last year, because of Jihadi-attacks and Islamic bombings, many Indians were killed and massacred brutally without any reason. But as they reportedly do in the name of Babur, the Indians have to remember it carefully. Even twodays back, they had been assertive about the “Babri-day celebrations” in different parts of India. Actually, the Indians and Hindus in particular are harassed and humiliated at public places – bus-stands and railway stations and temples, while the real jihadis walks away with smile on their lips, planting the bombs! Thus, Jodha Akbar was released to romantize and romanticize Hindu-Muslim relationship! This year, we have already enjoyed as to how the “Love-jihad” started working, immediately, after the attack of pubs by Promodh Muthalik! Now, before and after Liberhan and the terrorized dates 26-11-2009 and 05-12-2009, we have been made to read and listen to such stuff. Now this book is reviewed and Rahul says a muslim can become a PM! And all these things are secularization or baburization?
Homosexuality exhibited-Babar’s love with Baburi!: Unwittingly, the reviewer points out, “That Babur was fascinated by Baburi, a handsome young man who rose to heights because of the relationship, is well documented. But Rutherford merely skims the surface, his sieve coming in handy for him. Of course, he allows himself to say, “Though the loss of Baburi had felt like the death of part of himself, that had been a personal loss”. This is also nit a new thing, as they have such pattern. Allauddin Khilji had such romantic relation with Malikaaffur making him a scourge to rout and loot Hindus. In Omar Khayyam poetics, we note such romanticism of having sex with young, beautiful boy, who later turning into a terrorist i.e, a scourge! The same modus operandi is played and repeated even today.
Babar and Baburi: Babur’s romanticism even after death!: Interestingly, my google search exposes this following stuff, but from the same book. Here, Salim Kidwai reviews as follows: “The omission of Babur’s description of the first time he felt the stirrings of love is staggering. Babur says he became completely besotted by a street boy called Baburi. He would lose his speech in his presence and he wandered around like a mad-man, reciting love poetry. Why would a novelist omit rather than capitalise on this? Obviously because Baburi was also male. Clearly, the author understands the significance of his omission, because he elevates Baburi into the second most important character. In the tale, when Babur first set eyes on this broad shouldered, thin-waisted lad with indigo eyes, Baburi did menial work in the royal kitchen. Soon, he joined Babur’s army and became his closest confidante. They went riding, hunting and whoring together. They talked late into the night under the stars. Baburi ended up as his second-in-command at the Battle of Panipat. Baburi lifts Babur’s spirits when he is depressed, brings him back to earth when his ambitions take flight. He shows signs of jealousy when Babur talks about his wife. He himself refuses to marry. They argue and they brawl. Baburi disappears after one such spat. They are reconciled years later after he returns from a stint in the Ottoman army and introduces Babur to gunpowder, something that was crucial to Babur’s subsequent success. Babur had recognised Baburi’s corpse from a ring that he gave Baburi; Babur had felt a part of him die then. In fact, Babur is buried next to Baburi”.
The myth of Babur dying for Humayn!: The historians have been clever enough to whitewash the heinous crimes and devilish psyche of the so-called mughal / mongol emperors. Both Babar and Humayun had harems spending time drinking and enjoying human. Of course, they had armies with cannons and thus feeding them accordingly and therefore, they were satisfied equally. Thus, Humayun got some mysterious incurable disease, which could be AIDS also to say in modern understanding, as medieval “great-pox”!. That Babur prayed to Allah to transfer the disease to him also proved to be myth, as his death on 26-12-1530 at the age of 48 was already disputed! But historians point out that Babus was alive, when Humayun was slightly recovered and died six months later because, Ibrahim Lodhi’s mother poisoned him! Obviously, Babur would have taken all the women to harem and naturally, one of the women would have taken revenge or the mysterious disease would have made him to die!
The blood of Timur and Chengizkhan: Babur means “Tiger” and his descendency is traced to Timur from father side and Chngezkhan from mother side and thus, Lanepoole said, “The blood of the two great scourges (warriors) of Asia Mongol and Turk, Changez and Timur, mixed in his veins”! Thus, the heinous crimes of the descendants could be analyzed eaisly. And these are placed today to Indians as symbols and the reconstruction of Babar or Baburi Masjid is demanded ever year. In fact, “Baburi masjid” exposes the homosexuality and infatuation sex of Babur and his descendents and it would not be any pride for Mohammedans, Muslims or secular Indians.
 Alex Rutherford; Hachette India, 612/614 (6th Floor), Time Tower, M.G.Road, Sector 28, Gurgaon-122001. Rs. 495.
 A. S. Beverage, Babar Nama, pp.711-712.
குறிச்சொற்கள்: Babar, Babri Masjid, Babur dying for Humayn, Baburi, Baburization, Chengizkhan, Inculturation, Indian secularism, Jodha Akbar, Love-Jihad, Mahmud Gaznavi, romanticism, secularism, Timur