Manu Pillai's intellectual dishonesty on "Indic vs foreign"

 

Manu S. Pillai, one time right hand man of Shashi Tharoor is a very intelligent, erudite and knowledgable individual. He is the author of "Rebel Sultans" which offers a Richard Eatonesque glimpse into the cosmopolitan Deccan culture where religious differences seem to have lost their potency apart from occasional campaign rhetoric and appeal to religious figures for legitimacy.

However he made a very shallow, glib and throughly inappropriate comparision between Pallavas and Mughals when it came to the question of who is considered Indian and who is foreign.

He pointed that Nanthivarman, a Vietnamese prince as selected as the Pallava emperor because he descended from the offspring of a Pallava emperor and Cambodian queen (when Pallavas held political sway over those regions). So this individual who spoke no Tamil, Pali,Prakrit or Sanskrit ,with his non Indian features and customs was placed on the Pallava throne. Therefore ,asked Pillai, how can the Mughals be considered foreigners as well.

It is incredible that such a comparision was made. The Pallava prince though a foreigner was expected to propogate Indian culture and traditions. The Pallavas were after all great patrons of temples and literature. He did not implement Vietnamese customs but was a champion for what Pallavas were famed for.

While the Moghuls were self consciously Timurid , they considered themselves lords of Hindustan but not of Hindustan. One may say that they gradually forgot their Chagtai Turkic heritage. Yes they did but instead of replacing it with Indian heritage, they replaced it with Persian .They spoke Persian and promoted Persian culture and administration . When Shah Jahan reviled crude Turkic customs to a visiting Persian diplomat, the latter reminded him the emperor himself was a Turk.

Hence there is no comparision between the Pallavas having one foreign king and the Mughals who prided themselves on their foreign ancestry and Shah Jahan even depleting the treasury to fight Safavids over his ancestral homelands in Samarkand. 

There is no shortage of countries having kings of non native origin but who accustomed themselves to the native culture and became champions of the same. George III was of German origin but conducted himself like an Englishman and despite the loss of American colonies , English power under his regime was on the rise. THe Glorious revolution placed a Dutch king on the English throne. This was done by English nobles themselves.

Catherine the Great of Russia was a German princess who didnt bother about her ancestry one bit and dedicated herself to Russian interests.

None of these templates can be applied to Mughals. 

I can only deduce that Pillai is being dishonest in order to placate his audience- secularists in the Jaipur Literature Festival . And get more book deals and speaking engagements from the "respectable" type of people.

As much as secularists try to cover Islamic misdeeds and promote hollow secularist agenda with fancy books, pedigrees and glamour , basici logic and common sense such as above are always their downfall. You cannot dress up a crow as a peacock and expect people to beleive it.