| Pankaj, I remember your interest in my messages expressed
by the help of the message "Re: Słynny hinduski nastolatek (III)" (8/27/00
1:14 am, bluelotus_us). In the message "Gandhi i Akbar" (9/29/00 1:56 pm),
which is also concerned with Hinduism, I quoted the pieces of information
from my favorite weekly and from the book "When, Where, Why and How it
Happened? History's most dramatic events... and how they changed the world."
That message (http://messages.yahoo.com/bbs?.mm=FN&board=7083719&tid=rda&sid=7083719&action=m&
mid=338&mid=) of my dad incited me to quote one more fragment from
H. G. Wells's Chapter 32 The Great Empire of Jengis Khan and his Successors.
(The Age of the Land Ways), § 10. The Mogul empire of India.
Akbar, like all men, great or petty, lived with the limitations of his
period and its circles of ideas. And a Turkoman, ruling in India, was necessarily
ignorant of much that Europe had been painfully learning for a thousand
years. He knew nothing of the growth of a popular consciousness in Europe,
and little or nothing of the wide educational possibilities that the church
had been working out in the West. Something more than an occasional dispute
with a Christian missionary was needed for that. His upbringing in Islam
and his native genius made it plain to him that a great nation in India
could only be cemented by common ideas upon a religious basis, but the
knowledge of how such a solidarity could be created and sustained by universal
schools, cheap books, and a university system at once organized and free
to think, to which the modern state is still feeling its way, was as impossible
to him as a knowledge of steamboats or aeroplanes. The form of Islam he
knew best was the narrow and fiercely intolerant form of the Turkish Sunnites.
The Moslems were only a minority of the population. The problem he faced
was, indeed, very parallel to the problem of Constantine the Great. But
it had peculiar difficulties of its own. He never got beyond an attempt
to adapt Islam to a wider appeal by substituting for "There is one God,
and Muhammad is his prophet," the declaration, "There is one God, and the
Emperor is his regent." This he thought might form a common platform for
every variety of faith in India, that kaleidoscope of religions. With this
faith he associated a simple ritual borrowed from the Persian Zoroastrians
(the Parsees), who still survived, and survive to-day, in India. This new
state religion, however, died with him, because it had no roots in the
minds of the people about him.
The essential factor in the organization of a living state, the world
is coming to realize, is the organization of an education. This Akbar never
understood. And he had no class of men available who would suggest such
an idea to him or help him to carry it out. The Moslem teachers in India
were not so much teachers as conservators of an intense bigotry; they did
not want a common mind in India, but only a common intolerance in Islam.
The Brahmins, who had the monopoly of teaching among the Hindus, had all
the conceit and slackness of hereditary privilege. Yet, though Akbar made
no general educational scheme for India, he set up a number of Moslem and
Hindu schools.
H. G. Wells. THE OUTLINE OF HISTORY. Volume II. Garden City, New York,
GARDEN CITY BOOKS, 1961, p. 579
The judgments in this fragment slightly differ from the judgments published
in those pieces of information, which I quoted in my previous message,
hence the title of this message.
Seweryn |