Misinterpreting the Past

As a devout student of history, I know there are many things that I have yet to learn about the past. Still, that being said, I like to think that I have a fairly good understanding of the past and as the old adage says, 'those who forget the past are bound to repeat it.' But what about a past that is being misinterpreted and being proclaimed as the truth? Apparently Bal Thackeray, the outspoken and extremist leader of India's Shiv Sena party based in Maharashtra has taken it upon himself to call all faithful Hindus to strike back at Islamic fundamentalists within India by starting their own group of Hindu Suicide Bombers. His justification for this? Shivaji used violence to stop violence so why shouldn't his obvious 'successor' do the same.

In history there have been many ideas and many bad ideas and this probably ranks up there with one of the very worst and for someone who proclaims to be a follower of the rule of Shivaji Maharaj, I can think of no one more ill-suited to be leading the party than Bal Thackeray. Stories of his corruption and mafioso style tactics pepper the news all the time yet he remains in power and in control. Why? Because half the people appear to be scared of him and the other half follow him with blind devotion. And there's one thing about blind devotion that I always feel; it's that those who have no idea how to form their own opinions or can't think for themselves completely usually end up following someone who says the things they want to hear or does the things they wish to see be done.

Bal Thackeray may be many things to many people but one thing I will credit him with is having the ability to convince people of his reverence. He speaks of things as if he is the world's leading expert and has the supreme knowledge that comes from having innate wisdom. All I can see though is that he is manipulative and conniving. He is calling for Hindus to rise up and then stoop to the levels of common terrorists by offering to blow themselves up to stop fundamentalism? To me that sounds like chopping off your own arm because your leg is bleeding. The two have nothing to do with eachother and they are mutually exclusive. Thackeray claims that this is something that Shivaji would have espoused because he himself also fought violence with violence to seek change.

The difference is that Shivaji lived in far different times than the one we're in now. Yes, Shivaji used violence but only against aggressors who were enforcing their beliefs on Indians by any means at their disposal. Forced conversion, hostile takeovers of their land or even plain murder was what Shivaji fought against. Yes terrorism exists in India as it does all over the world but by implementing suicide bombings are we really going to see any change? Is that what our or any religion teaches us? No. I can think of no religion which teaches that killing of innocents is the way to salvation. Even those that many of us claim do teach those things are only interpreted to say those things. The reality is that they truth in religion is far different.

Thackeray wishes to 'protect' Hinduism from outside influences. Hence he has thugs go around on non-Hindu celebration days and rough up those wishing to have fun. What does that mean? Well on Valentine's Day he had his followers go after any male who appeared to be carrying on celebrations of Valentine's Day by having them roughed up so that they would see the light and return to practicing only Indian traditions. Is this what India is? Is this what Hinduism is? People need to wake up and see that Thackeray isn't interested in anything other than himself. He uses bold political statements and proclaimations to build up his image in public. He wishes to be seen as a saviour of the Hindu people, instead he'll probably end up sending a lot of them to their deaths for his own selfish desires. Perhaps he should do what many great leaders have done. Lead by example.