అలెగ్జాండర్ చక్రవర్తి.

 

నేను అలెగ్జాండర్ పోరాడిన Gaugamela యుద్ధం గురించి చదివినప్పుడు చాల ప్రభావితం అయ్యి అయన గురించి రాయాలి అనుకున్నాను. అయన యొక్క ధైర్యం  మరియు బలమైన శత్రువు అంటే ఆయనకు ఉన్న నిర్లక్ష్య వైఖరి అయన వేపు నన్ను ఆకర్షితుడిని చేసాయి. అదే ఈ చిన్న వ్యాసం అయన మీద.

ప్రపంచ విఖ్యాత చక్రవర్తుల లో అలెగ్జాండర్ ఒకడు. మనకు అలెగ్జాండర్ గురించి తెలుసును ఎందుకంటే అయన ఇండియా మీద దండెత్తి దక్షిణ పంజాబ్ లో మన రాజు ఆయన పురుషోత్తముడితో యుద్ధం చేసాడు. కానీ మనకు అయన గురించి తెలిసింది క్లుప్తంగానే.

అలెగ్జాండర్ క్రిస్తు పూర్వం 356  లో మేసిడోనియా సామ్రాజ్యం లో పుట్టాడు. అయన తండ్రి ఐన ఫిలిప్ మేసిడోనియా సామ్రాజ్యానికి మహారాజు. తల్లి పేరు ఒలింపియా. ఫిలిప్ కు 7  గురు రాణులు ఉన్నారు కానీ ఒలింపియా కొంత కాలం అయన ముఖ్య రాణి గా ఉంది.

అలెగ్జాండర్ కు 10  సంవత్సరాలు ఉండగా Thessaly  అనే రాజ్యం నుండి వచ్చిన ఒక వ్యాపారస్తుడు ఒక గుర్రాన్ని ఫిలిప్ కు బహుమతిగా ఇచ్చాడు. ఆ గుర్రాన్ని ఎక్కడం ఎవరికీ సాధ్యం కాలేదు ఎందుకంటే ఎక్కగానే అది వాళ్ళను పడేసింది. కానీ అలెగ్జాండర్ ఆ గుర్రాన్ని పరిశీలించి దాని నీడ ను చూసి అదే భయపడుతుంది అని గ్రహించాడు. దాని భయాన్ని వాడుకుని అలెగ్జాండర్ ఆ గుర్రాన్ని ఎక్కి విజయవంతంగా స్వారీ చేసాడు. దాన్ని చూసి తండ్రి ఫిలిప్ అలెగ్జాండర్ కు మేసిడోనియా మరీ చిన్న రాజ్యం అని వ్యాఖ్యానించాడు. అలెగ్జాండర్ ఆ గుర్రానికి "Bucephalus " అని పేరు పెట్టాడు. ఆ గుర్రం అలెగ్జాండర్ చేసిన అన్ని యుద్ధాల లోను అలెగ్జాండర్ ని తీసుకెళ్లింది.

అలెగ్జాండర్ కు 13  సంవత్సరాలు ఉండగా ఫిలిప్ అలెగ్జాండర్ కి గురువుగా సోక్రటీస్ ను నియమించాడు. అలెగ్జాండర్ కు గ్రీకు కవి హోమర్ రచనలు అంటే ఇష్టం, ముఖ్యంగా అయన రచన ఐన "ఇలియాడ్" అంటే. . ఆయనకు సోక్రటీస్ ఒక ఇలియాడ్ గ్రంధాన్ని బహూకరించాడు. దాన్ని అలెగ్జాండర్ తన యుద్ధాలు అన్నిటిలో కూడా తీసుకుని వెళ్ళేవాడు.

అలెగ్జాండర్ కు 16  సంవత్సరాలు ఉండగా ఫిలిప్ బైజాంటియమ్ మీద యుద్ధానికి వెళ్తూ రాజ్యాన్ని అలెగ్జాండర్ చేతుల్లో పెట్టాడు. దానితో సోక్రటీస్ దగ్గర అలెగ్జాండర్ శిష్యరికం అంతం అయ్యింది. అలెగ్జాండర్ సామ్రాజ్యంలో జరిగిన ఒక తిరుగుబాటు ను అణచివేసి Alexandropolis అనే నగరాన్ని స్థాపించాడు.

అప్పటివరకు మేసిడోనియా గ్రీస్ లో ఒక చిన్న రాజ్యం. ఫిలిప్ అలెగ్జాండర్ తో కలిసి నెమ్మదిగా గ్రీస్ లో ఉన్న ఇతర రాజ్యాలను గెలిచి సామ్రాజ్యం విస్తరించాడు. గ్రీకు చిన్న రాజ్యాలు అన్ని కలిపి ఏకం  అయ్యి  ఏథెన్స్ ను Thebes  ను ఓడించారు. తరువాత ఈ రాజ్యాల సమ్మేళనానికి ఫిలిప్ పెద్ద అయ్యాడు. ఈ సమ్మేళనం లో గ్రీసులో ఉన్న రాజ్యాలలో స్పార్టా రాజ్యం మాత్రమే లేదు.

ఫిలిప్ యుద్ధ తంత్రం లో అందె వేసిన చెయ్యి. అతను మెసిడోనియన్ phalanx  అని చెప్పి ఒక కొత్త యుద్ధ తంత్రం ఆవిష్కారించాడు. అందులో సైనికులు 6.5  కిలోగ్రాముల బరువు ఉండి 18  అడుగులు పొడవైన ఒక బల్లెం ధరించేవారు. దానిని సరిస్సా అని పిలిచేవారు. ఒక్కో Phalanx  లో   16  మంది  సైనికులు అడ్డంగాను 16  మంది  సైనికులు నిలువుగాను అంటే చతురస్రంలో మొత్తంగా 256  మంది సైనికులు ఉండేవారు. ముందు పంక్తిలో ఉండే సైనికులు సరిస్సా ను తమ ముందుకు చాచి మెడకు డాలు ధరించి శత్రు సైనికులు తమ వద్దకు వచ్చే లోపే పొడిచి సంహరించేవారు. ఈ కొత్త యద్ద తంత్రం వలన మాసిడోనియన్ సైన్యం శత్రు దుర్భేద్యం అయ్యింది. 

ఫిలిప్ తిరిగి మేసిడోనియా వచ్చాక ప్రేమలో పడి క్లియోపాత్రా యూరిపిడిస్ (ఈజిప్షియన్ క్లియోపాత్రా కాదు) అనే ఒక సైన్యాధిపతి మేనకోడలిని పెళ్లి చేసుకున్నాడు. ఆమె ఒక మాసిడోనియన్ కానీ అలెగ్జాండర్ తల్లి సగం మాసిడోనియన్ అంటే ఆమె తల్లితండ్రుల లో ఒకరు మాసిడోనియన్ కాదు. ఒకవేళ ఈ క్లియోపాత్రా కి కానీ కొడుకు పుడితే మొత్తం మాసిడోనియన్ కాబట్టి అతనే రాజ్యానికి చక్రవర్తి అవుతాడు.

ఫిలిప్ మరియు క్లియోపాత్రా యూరిపిడిస్ పెళ్లి లో క్లియోపాత్రా చిన్నాన్న అలెగ్జాండర్ ను అవమానించాడు. అయన మీద తిరగబడిన అలెగ్జాండర్ ను ఫిలిప్ కత్తి  తీసి చంపబోయాడు. కానీ మద్యం మత్తులో ఉండటం వల్ల కింద పడిపోయాడు. ఆ తరువాత అలెగ్జాండర్ తన తల్లి ఐన ఒలింపియా ను తీసుకుని మేసిడోనియా నుండి పారిపోయాడు. తల్లిని ఆమె అన్న దగ్గర వదిలిపెట్టి తాను ఇల్లిరియా అనే దేశంలో 6  నెలలు తలదాచుకున్నాడు. చివరికి ఒక కుటుంబ స్నేహితుడు ఫిలిప్ మరియు అలెగ్జాండర్ మధ్యన  సహోద్య కుదిర్చాడు.  

ఫిలిప్ ను తన అంగరక్షక దళ అధ్యక్షుడు హత్య చేయగా రాజకీయ ప్రముఖులు, సైన్యం అలెగ్జాండర్ ను క్రిస్తు పూర్వం 336  లో మహారాజు గా ప్రకటించారు. అప్పుడు అలెగ్జాండర్ వయసు 20  సంవత్సరాలు. ఫిలిప్ మరణ వార్త వినగానే Thebes , Athens , Thessaly  మరియు Thracian  తెగలు  తిరుగుబాటు చేసాయి. అలెగ్జాండర్ ఆ తిరుగుబాటులను అణచివేసాడు. ఆయనను గ్రీకు రాజ్యాలు అన్నీ కలిసి పెర్షియన్ సామ్రాజ్యం మీద చేసే దండయాత్రకు సైన్యాధ్యక్షుడిగా  ప్రకటించాయి.

అలెగ్జాండర్ 48,000  కాల్బలం 6 ,000  గుర్రపు రౌతులను తీసుకొని క్రిస్తు పూర్వం 334  సంవత్సరంలో పెర్షియన్ సామ్రాజ్యం లోని టర్కీ లో  ప్రవేశించాడు. ఈ సందర్భం లో ఎవరు విప్పలేని ముడిని అలెగ్జాండర్ ఖండించాడు అని విని ఉంటారు. అది Phrygian  రాజ్య రాజధాని ఐన Gordium   అనే నగరం లో జరిగింది. ఆ ముడిని విప్పే వాడు ప్రపంచ విజేత అవుతాడు అని అక్కడి వారు అనుకునేవారు.

అలెగ్జాండర్ ఆ ముడి ఉన్న గుడి వద్దకు వచ్చాడు. ఆ ముడిని ఎలా విప్పుతాడో అని చూస్తున్న తన అనుచరులు, ఆ గుడి పూజారులు నిర్ఘాంతపోయేలా అయన తన కత్తి ఎత్తి ఆ ముడిని రెండుగా ఖండించాడు. తరువాత ఆ ముడిని విప్పమన్నారు కానీ ఏ విధంగా విప్పాలో చెప్పలేదు కదా అందుకే తాను చేసింది సరి  అయినదే అని చెప్పుకున్నాడు అయన.

అప్పటి పెర్షియన్ సామ్రాజ్యంలో ఇప్పుడు ఉన్న దేశాలలో 20  పైన ఉన్నాయి. వాటి మొత్తం జనాభా కలిపి ఇప్పుడు దాదాపు 70  కోట్లు. అవి

1. ఇరాన్, 2. ఇరాక్, 3. అర్మీనియా, 4. ఆఫ్ఘనిస్తాన్ 5. టర్కీ, 6. బల్గేరియా, 7. ఈజిప్ట్ , 8. సిరియా, 9. పాకిస్తాన్, 10. జోర్డాన్ , 11. ఇస్రేల్, 12. లెబనాన్, 13. లిబియా, 14. అజర్బైజాన్, 15. పాలస్తీనా, 16. UAE ,17.  సౌదీ అరేబియా, 18. జార్జియా, 19. తుర్కమేనిస్తాన్, 20.  ఉజ్బేకిస్తాన్, 21. తద్ఝికిస్తాన్, 22. కువైట్, 23. ఒమాన్,24.  సైప్రస్ 25. టర్కీ      

సైన్యంతో పెర్షియన్ సామ్రాజ్యంలో ప్రవేశించిన అలెగ్జాండర్ ముందుగా Granicus  నది  దగ్గర పెర్షియన్ సామంతులను ఓడించాడు. తరువాత పెర్షియన్ సామ్రాజ్యంలోనికి చొచ్చుకుపోయాడు. తిరిగి Issus అనే చోట Darius  III స్వయంగా  సైన్యంతో వచ్చి అలెగ్జాండర్ సైన్యాన్ని అడ్డగించాడు. అక్కడ ఐన యుద్ధంలో అలెగ్జాండర్ Darius  III   ని ఓడించగా అయన యుద్ధం నుండి పారిపోయాడు. ఆ యుద్ధంలో Darius  III  రాణి, అయన తల్లి, ఇద్దరు కూతుర్లు అలెగ్జాండర్ కి బందీలుగా చిక్కారు. వాళ్లతో  అలెగ్జాండర్ మర్యాదగా వ్యవహరించాడు. 

ఆ తరువాత అలెగ్జాండర్ పెర్షియన్ సామ్రాజ్యంలోనికి ఇంకా లోతుగా తన సేనను నడిపాడు. తిరిగి Gaugamela  అనే చోట Darius  III  స్వయంగా సైన్యంతో తరలి వచ్చి అలెగ్జాండర్ ని క్రిస్తు పూర్వం 331  లో ఎదుర్కొన్నాడు. పురాతన చరిత్రకారుల ఆధారాల ప్రకారం పెర్షియన్ సైన్యం లో కనీసం 250 ,000  మంది  సైనికులు ఉన్నారు కానీ నూతన చరిత్రకారులు అది కేవలం 100 ,000  మంది మాత్రమే అని చెప్తున్నారు. ఏది నిజం ఐనా అలెగ్జాండర్ వద్ద అప్పుడు ఉన్నది కేవలం 50 ,000  మంది సైనికులు మాత్రమే. అంటే పెర్షియన్ సైన్యం అలెగ్జాండర్ సైన్యం కంటే కనీసం రెట్టింపు ఉంది.

అలెగ్జాండర్ ముఖ్య సేనాధిపతి ఐన Parsimonius ఆ పెర్షియన్ సైన్యంతో యుద్ధాన్ని వ్యతిరేకించాడు. ఆ యుద్ధాన్ని గెలవడం అసాధ్యం అని అలెగ్జాండర్ తో చెప్పాడు అయన. కానీ అలెగ్జాండర్ పట్టు విడవకపోవడం వలన చివరికి  రాత్రి వేళ పెర్షియన్ సైన్యాన్ని ముట్టడిస్తే బాగుంటుంది సలహా ఇచ్చాడు. దానికి అలెగ్జాండర్ ఒప్పుకోలేదు. తనకు మోసం చేసి యుద్ధాన్ని గెలిచే ఉద్దేశం లేదు అని Parsimonius  కు చెప్పాడు.  అలెగ్జాండర్ గొప్ప యుద్ధ తంత్రం తో పగటి సమయంలోనే పెర్షియన్ సైన్యాన్ని ముట్టడించాడు. అతని యుద్ధ తంత్రం వల్ల పెర్షియన్ సైన్యాలు ఓడిపోయి పారిపోయాయి. యుద్ధంలో కేవలం 1000  మంది గ్రీకు సైనికులు మరణించగా పెర్షియన్ సైనికులు 40 ,000  మంది మరణించారు. అది అలెగ్జాండర్ కి ఒక గొప్ప విజయం. 

అలెగ్జాండర్ విశిష్టత ఏమిటంటే అయన తన అశ్వదళం ముందు బాగాన ఉండి సైన్యాన్ని నడిపించేవాడు. సైన్త్యంలో ముందు యుద్ధం లోకి దూకేవాడు అలెగ్జాండర్ నే. ఆయన పర్షియా మీద దండయాత్రకు బయలుదేరినప్పుడు ఆయనకు కేవలం 22  సంవత్సరాలు. ఆయన చేసిన అనేక యుద్ధాలలో చనిపోయేవరకు అపజయం అనేది ఎరుగడు అయన.

అలెగ్జాండర్ గురించి న వ్యాసం ఇంకా  పూర్తి కాలేదు. ఇప్పటికే వ్యాసం పెద్దదిగా అయిపొయింది. తరువాతి భాగం మళ్ళీ ఇంకోసారి రాస్తాను.

ORIGINS OF WESTERN PHILOSOPHY.

 

The origins of European philosophy are in Greece. To see how Greek philosophy developed we have to see the background of Greece. The origins of Greek civilization seem to have come from the Mediterranean island of Crete. The Cretan civilization, also called Minoan seems to have reached its peak by 2500 BC itself.

The kings of Crete are known as Minos. The existence of this civilization was discovered by an English archaeologist Sir Arthur Evans when he carried out excavations near Knossos in Crete. The Minoans were trading with Egypt and made objects of great craftsmanship. They worshipped beauty and happiness and there is no place for sorrow in their religion. All their Gods are female.

Minoans are not Greeks but they had relations with Greece. This great civilization suddenly disappeared in 1400 BC, the cause of which is not known. The scene of western civilization now shifts to Greece.

The civilization which then existed in Greece was called the Mycenaean named after its principal city Mycenae. This existed between 1500-900 BC. The Mycenaean’s borrowed their civilization both from the Minoans and the Egyptians. Both the works Iliad and Odyssey written by Homer belonged to this time.

There were many tribes in Greece but all of them were united together by three things. The first is the Greek language, second is the Olympics that were held every four years from 776 BC onwards and the third is the two great works of Homer.

Greeks belong to the Indo European tribes. They came in three waves from 1500-900 BC and occupied Greece. The first were Ionians, then the Achaeans and finally the Dorians. The real great Greek civilization starts only with the Dorians.   

Greece is a small Archipelago and it is full of valleys, mountains and islands. The terrain made transportation difficult and so small independent City States developed. A city surrounded by agricultural lands made the City State. The land was not fertile and as the population increased they spread to the West Coast of Asia Minor, Aegean Islands, Southern Italy and Sicily. The City States had lots of sea commerce and as they interacted with other peoples the Greeks learnt many things from them. They learnt the script form the Phoenicians and their literature multiplied. They then built a great civilization.

The Greeks are not very religiously inclined. Although they had many Gods, their Gods are more like men in habits with the only difference being that they were everlasting, more powerful and had magical powers. We are quite familiar with Zeus, Poseidon, Apollo, Aphrodite.

The ORPHIC CULT has actually arisen from primitive beliefs, but it goes on to become more refined later, giving rise to philosophy. Dionysus is the God of trees. Especially of Grapes and wines. He is also known as Bacchus. It is surprising as to how philosophy could evolve from such primitive thinking, but there it is. 

Dionysus  is born to Zeus and Persephone. When he is in the form of a bull, the Titans (somewhat like our Rakshasas) killed him and ate his flesh. But Zeus saves his heart and ate it. After that Dionysus was born to Zeus and Semile a human being.

 Semile wants to see Zeus with her eyes and Zeus shows her his Viswarupa. By seeing that she turns to ashes, but Dionysus who was in her womb was saved by Zeus and he protects it in his thigh. After sometime Dionysus was born from the thigh of Zeus. Zeus then reduces the Titans to ashes with his powerful weapon and creates humans’ from their ashes.

 From this story some Greeks believed that humans had a part from the Titans as well as Gods. They believed that if the human body had the part from Titans then the Soul had a part from the Gods. If one is to release the soul from the body then man will attain Moksha or bliss. Till then man is born again and again.   

If man is to be released from this cycle he has to perform certain rites. These rites have been popularized by a Greek warrior named Orpheus, which is why it is called the Orphic religion. 

In the initial stages it is said that the person who supervised the rites was killed by the worshippers and his flesh was eaten by them. Later they use to kill a bull and eat its flesh. They believed that their God Dionysus was present in the meat of the sacred bull and by eating it they will become immortal.

 There is a great impression in Greek thinking by Orphism which later got refined by thinkers. The primary goal of man is to become immortal. Man’s body and soul are separate, and for releasing the soul from the body a moral and disciplined life had to be led. This had a great influence on later Greek philosophers like Pythagoras, and even on Socrates and Plato to an extent. You can see how close this looks to our own Hindu philosophy.

 

NASADIYA SUKTA OF THE RIGVEDA.

 The Nasadiya Sukta or the Hymn of Creation belongs to the 10th mandala in the 129th verse of the Rigveda. Nasadiya Sukta is also known as the verse to the source of creation.

There are remarkable questions in the verse. It is highly sceptical and it soliloquises on creation and the creator. If we understand the meaning of this Sukta, then its roots contain theism, atheism, polytheism and pantheism. It is challenges as to whether the creator who is the Brahman itself knows or does not know from where all creation came from. See the translation of the sukta below.

The Nasadiya Sukta or the Hymn of Creation is the 129th hymn of the 10th mandala of the Rigveda. 10.129. It goes like this:

1.   Then even non-existence was not there, nor existence,

There was no air then, nor the space beyond it.

What covered it? Where was it? In whose keeping was it?

Was there then the cosmic fluid, in depths unfathomed?

2. Then there was neither death nor immortality

nor was there then the torch of night and day.

The One breathed windlessly and self-sustaining.

There was that One then, and there was no other.

3. At first there was only darkness wrapped in darkness.

All this was only un-illumined cosmic water.

That One which came to be, enclosed in nothing,

arose at last, born of the power of knowledge.

4. In the beginning desire descended on it -

that was the primal seed, born of the mind.

The sages who have searched their hearts with wisdom

know that which is, is kin to that which is not.

5. And they have stretched their cord across the void,

and know what was above, and what below.

Seminal powers made fertile by mighty forces.

Below was strength, and over it was impulse.

6. But, after all, who knows, and who can say

Whence it all came, and how creation happened?

the Gods themselves are later than creation,

so who knows truly whence it has arisen?

7. Whence all creation had its origin,

the creator, whether he fashioned it or whether he did not,

the creator, who surveys it all from the highest heaven,

he knows — or maybe even he does not know.

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT IN INDIA.

 

It is fashionable to say that there should not be any Capital Punishment in India. To buttress this argument it is cited that about 100 countries in the world have abolished the death penalty. In fact when Ajmal Kasab, Afzal Guru & Yakub Memon were executed a lot of noise was made by groups in favor of abolishing the death penalty.

Whatever may have been the number of executions carried out on account of Capital Punishment in India earlier, after the year 2000, there seems to be a self-imposed restriction by the judges in clearing executions of convicts.

There is a perfect record of executions after the year 2000. Only 8 people have been executed since the year 2000 in a period of 23 years. They are

1.       Dhananjoy Chaterjee in the year 2004 for rape & murder of Hetal Parekh aged 14 in 1990.

2.       Ajmal Kasab in the year 2012 for the 2008 Bombay attacks.

3.       Afzal Guru in the year 2013 for the 2001 Parliament attack.

4.       Yakub Memon in the year 2015 for the 1993 Bombay bombings

5.       Mukesh Singh, Akshay Thakur, Vinay Sharma & Pawan Gupta in the year 2020 for the Nirbhaya Gang rape case. In this case one of the accused had committed suicide in prison and the minor was let off from Capital Punishment.

So our higher courts despite the lower courts handing out death sentences have commuted them in most cases to life imprisonment. Only in the extreme unpardonable cases execution had been permitted. 

I personally feel Capital Punishment is a must in such cases as was done after the year 2000. I am well conversant as to how our courts operate and considering that, it is impossible to execute anyone who is innocent. Even if someone is deliberately fixed by another person of such heinous tasks it would become impossible to prove the culpability in the courts.

Some groups advance the argument that an innocent may be executed if a death punishment is there and his life cannot be brought back. Proving a person who is not guilty as guilty enough to get executed is just impossible. In fact, because of that very reason some people who deserve capital Punishment too get away and there is nothing the courts can do about it. In most cases, our Police too are responsible because they carry out a shoddy investigation on the matter and do not present tangible evidence to the courts.

I do not know about the Dhananjay Chaterjee case, but in the entire above hangings, one can see that there is extremely strong evidence against the culprits and they had been responsible for the most heinous offenses.

Why the Death Penalty?

1.       First and foremost is deterrence. The death penalty makes the culprits fear the repercussions of their actions. Yes, even a jail sentence is feared but the death penalty is feared even more. Of course, this deterrence does not work when a person is emotionally disturbed and does not think about anything else but killing the other person in a heinous manner. In fact, punishment itself is made for bringing deterrence in a criminal act. Even if deters only 10 people out of 100 from committing such an act then Capital Punishment is justified.

2.       The critics say it is a violation of human rights. However, I contend after committing such heinous offences the persons are no longer human and should be treated accordingly.

3.       The critics say that there may be a racial and socio-economic bias. There may well be a bias, but unless strong and clear-cut evidence is available the death penalty is simply not being awarded in India and hence this contention does not hold even remotely.

4.       It is very easy to argue against the death penalty. But are the people who argue ready to take the responsibility if a convict already undergoing life imprisonment for a heinous crime, so commuted because of their insistence escapes and commits another murder? Are they ready to be tried for abetment of that latest murder because it is on their insistence that his sentence was commuted to life imprisonment from death and that allowed the accused to commit another murder? If those advocates are ready to take that responsibility and give it in writing then there should not be any problem for commuting their sentences.

UNIFORM CIVIL CODE

 

The hot topic now is the Uniform Civil Code. This is nothing but a set of laws that are applicable to all citizens of a country without discrimination.

How is the position of UCC in other multiracial and multi-cultural countries?

In the ancient times, the Roman Empire had subjects in many countries and encompassed a large area. Emperor Justinian implemented the UCC in Rome in the year 527 AD.

In France it came into application in the year 1804

Most countries of the Islamic faith had adopted the Sharia law and they also adopted a UCC as per the Sharia law. The Sharia law is uniformly applicable to all its citizens irrespective of their religion. They are Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Pakistan, Egypt, Malaysia, Nigeria etc.

A UCC does not mean Hindus would have their own laws in the UCC. What would be there in the UCC would be the liberal suitable laws that can be adopted from many countries in line with the modern times. It is possible that some parts of the present Hindu law itself may not be according to the international norm. In such instances even such Hindu laws can be changed.

Moreover Hindu laws have already undergone a transformation on account of the efforts of social reformers like Ishwara Chandra Vidyasagar. The Hindu Widow Remarriages Act was passed in 1856. Before that act, it was illegal for a Widow to remarry again. Scriptural Hindu Law did not allow widows to remarry again. So that barbaric practice has been superseded by this law. However, there were variations in this law in different communities. The Jats and the Dravidians followed laws that are at variance with scriptural Hindu law. So did Shudras.

The Hindu Inheritance (Removal of Disabilities) Act was passed in 1928.  Prior to that, Hindu women had no right to own property and this Act empowered them to do so. However, legislation to give proper and equal laws to women had been opposed by the Muslims and they wanted to follow the Sharia Law.  

The Hindu Womens Property Act of 1937 gave rights to women to inherit Joint Hindu family property. It enabled the Widow to succeed along with the son and take a share equal to that of the son. This property however can only be enjoyed by her till her death.

There was then a debate on the UCC as it was proposed to be adapted to all the citizens. There was some resistance to the Code from the Muslims as well as some Hindus in 1943 onwards and finally a consensus was reached and article 44 was introduced in the Constitution which was indicative about the UCC and not enforceable. 

The B.N.Rau (This is the same Benegal Narsing Rau who became the advisor to the Drafting Committee of the Constitution) Committee in 1947 prepared a Draft Code for Hindu law dealing with Succession, Maintenance, Marriage and Divorce, Minority and Guardianship and adoption. This code recommended the abolition of the Joint Family property system, introduction of the daughter’s simultaneous succession to the father’s estate along with the son, the abolition of the barrier of inter caste marriages, the assimilation of civil and sacramental marriages and the introduction of Divorce.

The Ministry of Law revised the draft of the Hindu Code Bills in 1948 which was introduced in the Constituent assembly which referred it to a committee under Dr B R Ambedkar. The Committee made a number of important changes in the bill. It stipulated that the Hindu code would apply to anyone who was not a Muslim, Parsi, Christian or Jew. Those who practiced Sikhism, Buddhism and Jainism were considered to be a Hindu as per the jurisdiction of the bill.

There was a big dissent to the bill as there were large regional variations in Hindu law. The bill could not be passed even after a long debate in the assembly and ultimately a whittled down version of the bill was presented by the Government. Even then, the bill could not be passed and Ambedkar resigned from the Constituent assembly because of that.

The Hindu Code bills are multiple bills passed by the Government in the 1950’s to standardize and modernize Hindu laws. Nehru campaigned for the Hindu Code Bills in the 1952 General elections and the bills were passed as the 1. Hindu Marriage Act, 2. Hindu Succession Act, 3. Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act and 4. Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act.

Before these acts there was no uniform Hindu law and there were regional disparities in interpretation and adaptation.

As one can see there is a big opposition to even passing the Hindu Code Bill. Only after the 1952 General Elections Nehru could push it through in the form of various bills.

So there had been a reform in the Hindu laws despite opposition from large sections of people. Unfortunately the Muslim law remained totally out of the ambit of those bills and it stands where it was before Independence and therefore very much requires a reform. Not just that even the laws the Hindus use now have to be reformed after studying various international laws.

UCC does not mean reforming of only the Muslim personal law as some people tend to believe, it is a revision of all personal laws to make them compatible with the modern times. 

 

 

MUGHAL EMPEROR BABUR

 

Babur was born in the year 1483 to Umar Shaikh Mirza and Kutlugh Nigar Khanum. He comes from the Barlas tribe of Mongol origin but they are Turkish in language and customs through living for a long time in Turkish regions. From his father’s side Babur was the 5^th in succession from Taimur and  13^th on the mother’s line to Chenghiz Khan. They come from the clan of Chagatai which was originally Mongol but was later got influenced by the Turkish culture. 

Babur’s real name was Zahiruddin Mohammed but he later acquired the nickname Babur. His father Umar Shaikh Mirza ruled the kingdom of Fergana to the North of the Hindukush mountain ranges. They are called Timurids as the dynasty was established by Timur. Timur’s father spent his whole life trying to conquer Samarkhand ( Uzbekistan)  which was earlier Timur’s capital. Babur followed his father’s footsteps.

For 10 years Babur sought to recover Samarkand and occupied it twice before losing it twice. His opponent was Mohammed Shaibani Khan the ruler of Uzbegs and a descendant of Chenghiz Khan. He defeated Babur and Babur lost both the Principalities of Samarkand & Fergana. His 3^rd and last unsuccessful attempt on Samarkand also failed and made him concentrate more on the East on Sindh and India.

There was a fierce fight between the Timurids and the Uzbeks and Shaibani Khan had killed many princes related to Babur. There were also internecine wars between the Timurid’s themselves for ascendancy.

When Babur made his first raid into Punjab in 1519 all the territory of that province was under Ibrahim Lodi and it was being governed by his vassal Daulat Khan Lodi who resented Ibrahim Lodi. Till 1524 Babur raided the Punjab but could not annex it. Babur’s help was sought by Alam Khan Ibrahim Lodi’s uncle as well as Daulat Khan Lodi to subdue Ibrahim Lodi.

Before arriving at Panipat Babur had to defeat other Afghan princes. Finally Babur confronted Ibrahim Lodi at Panipat in the year 1526 about 80 Km from Delhi. Babar had only 12000 troops while Ibrahim Lodi had 100,000 men and 100 war elephants. But Babur had acquired new artillery and muskets from the Ottoman Turks and Ibrahim Lodi had none. So the artillery barrages have demoralized and defeated the enemy. Many of Ibrahim Lodis soldiers were killed by the trampling of his terrified elephants due to the sound of gunfire. Ibrahim Lodi was killed in the battle. Babar took Delhi in 3 days’ time.

Babur may have defeated Ibrahim Lodi, but powerful foes surrounded him in India. All down the Ganges river were many formidable Afghan chiefs and to the South were the Kingdoms of Malwa and Gujarat.

Rana Sanga managed to unite all the Rajputs under him and they were a formidable enemy. Rana Sanga now advanced with an army of 100,000 horses and 500 elephants. Rajput valour was also known to Babur’s forces and they got discouraged. To lift their sagging morale Babar has proclaimed abstinence from drink broke his drinking cups and emptied out all his wine on the ground and prayed God to give him victory.

Rana Sanga was a very fierce warrior. He is respected by all the Rajput chiefs and is at home in battle and his valour and fearlessness was well known. His entire body was criss crossed with 56 scars which he had acquired in his other battles. He also became blind in one eye and had also lost a hand in other battles. When he led the army into the battle of Khanwa he was sitting on his war elephant. Obviously when his elephants panicked on account of gunfire from Babar’s guns he too must have been thrown down from the elephant.  He was killed in the battle.

The battle took place at Khanwa about 60 Km from Agra in 1527 AD. Babur’s artillery played havoc with the elephants of Rana Sanga. On top of that Sardar Silhadi of Raisen who was sent to Babar’s camp for negotiations before the battle walked over to Baber’s side. Either way the battle was not easy to win for Babur and was much tougher than Panipat. As waves of Rajputs attacked, they were mowed down by the muskets of Babur’s men. The Rajputs despite having a big numerical superiority could therefore do nothing but mount attack after attack and get mowed down. The chaos was further heightened by the panic of the elephants.

On top of that Sikandar Lodi whom the Afgans proclaimed as the new Sultan after Ibrahim Lodi’s death has also joined Rana Sangha with a contingent of horsemen. Khanzada Hasan Khan, the ruler of Mewat, another Afghan chief also joined Rana Sanga with his troops. Babur declared the Afghans who joined Rana Sangha as kafirs.

So this was actually a Rajput Afghan alliance fighting Babur. As you can see religion was never a factor in this battle. The Rajputs opposed Babar, but so did the Afghans. Moreover the Afghans were declared as kafirs by Babur because they joined the Rajputs. In Babur’s home territory too it was the Muslim Uzbegs who fiercely opposed him and gave him no peace.

After Khanwa, Babar took the Rajput fort of Chanderi to bring down Rajput resistance and turned East to take care of the Afghan chiefs along the river Ganges. They grouped under Mohammed Lodi but were defeated at the battle of Ghagra in the year 1529, the artillery again playing a key role.

Now what actually happened for the Indian troops at these battles was that they were simply outmatched on technology. Indians knew about guns before the arrival of Babur but they used them only for defending the forts and not for battle attack. So they had no answer to Babar’s artillery and lost the battles before they began.

Babur did not have time to consolidate the Empire he won. In fact it was not yet an empire but merely a conglomeration of many kingdoms whose kings were subdued by Babur without any façade of unity. In 1530 Humayun, Babar’s favourite son fell ill and his condition became serious. Babur then prayed and offered his life to God in exchange   of Humayun’s. After that Humayun recovered and Babur fell ill and died in the same year.