Readers' Forum
“We are not alone”
I have just read the editorial of your April issue entitled “We are not alone.” I may not have understood it properly but by lumping our community with minority Christians and Muslims you seem to be suggesting that the majority community is behind the vandalism at the Bhikha Behram well. This is surprising for like most simple-minded Parsis I believe that we owe our survival to the generosity of a Hindu king in Gujarat and the generally tolerant attitude of the majority community.
Half way down the editorial you have made a statement: “Not only Muslims but Hindus too have slaughtered community members in the centuries gone by.” Would you care to educate us about the occasions on which Hindus slaughtered members of the Parsi community?
The Editor replies
The editorial stated in the second para that “there is as yet no apparent communal angle to the desecration.” It is only when minority institutions are attacked that support from all quarters is needed. The Public Concern for Governance Trust that convened the meeting is a cosmopolitan organization, many of whose members including the chairman are from the majority community. Minorities, by their very definition, believe they are more vulnerable to attack and hence there is all the more need for reassurance from all communities.
With reference to the attacks on the community in the past by Hindus in and around the 13th century, according to the book From the Iranian Plateau to the Shores of Gujarat, the Parsis of Surat progressed to the extent of assuming a more or less independent position and challenged their sovereign.” The book quotes the Bombay Gazetteer, vol IX, part II (Bombay, 1901) as saying:
“These settlers, according to traditional records and as reported by Henry Lord refused to pay tribute to their overlord, the Rajput chief of Ratanpur, and attacked his troops when they came to collect the tribute. Ultimately, they were defeated by a stratagem of attacking the settlement in the absence of the menfolk. The women bravely fought back but were defeated and it is said that they jumped into the Tapi River, which ran through the village, rather than be captured. The tradition is so strong that even today the day of this disaster (25th day of the Farvardin month) is commemorated in Surat with special religious ceremonies.”
The authors of the book Mani Kamerkar and Soonu Dhunjisha further note that three and a half centuries later “during Shivaji’s attack on Surat in 1664... Shivaji’s troops surrounded the town on all sides and... many men and women were taken prisoners. From reports given by Jadunath Sarkar, Jagannath Laxman Mankar, N. S. Takakhav and Jamshed Kekobad, Surat had a fort, but no wall around it at the time of the attack. As mentioned Surat was the emporium of international trade and also the port of exit for the Haj journey. The city was therefore extremely wealthy with a population of two lakh. The rich occupied the river frontage, which included the spacious house of Rustom Manek. Shivaji was attracted to Surat and after sacking it a number of times, he called it the key to his treasure. Shivaji’s chief object was to amass wealth by plundering this rich city. His army consisted of 10,000 mawlis lead by Moropant Pingle and Prataprao Guzar. On hearing of the approach of Shivaji’s army from the direction of Gandevi, the people began to leave the city for villages on the other side of the river.
“The governor, Inayat Khan fled into the fort, without arranging for any protection for the people who were left to fend for themselves. Some rich men took shelter in the fort by paying the commandant. It seems, the people were left helpless and open to abuses and loot. Many of the rich and wealthy traders did not even have guards to protect them and their property. The foreign companies, the English, Dutch, Armenians and Turks, guarded their own factories with their soldiers and showed the courage<
Half way down the editorial you have made a statement: “Not only Muslims but Hindus too have slaughtered community members in the centuries gone by.” Would you care to educate us about the occasions on which Hindus slaughtered members of the Parsi community?
The Editor replies
The editorial stated in the second para that “there is as yet no apparent communal angle to the desecration.” It is only when minority institutions are attacked that support from all quarters is needed. The Public Concern for Governance Trust that convened the meeting is a cosmopolitan organization, many of whose members including the chairman are from the majority community. Minorities, by their very definition, believe they are more vulnerable to attack and hence there is all the more need for reassurance from all communities.
With reference to the attacks on the community in the past by Hindus in and around the 13th century, according to the book From the Iranian Plateau to the Shores of Gujarat, the Parsis of Surat progressed to the extent of assuming a more or less independent position and challenged their sovereign.” The book quotes the Bombay Gazetteer, vol IX, part II (Bombay, 1901) as saying:
“These settlers, according to traditional records and as reported by Henry Lord refused to pay tribute to their overlord, the Rajput chief of Ratanpur, and attacked his troops when they came to collect the tribute. Ultimately, they were defeated by a stratagem of attacking the settlement in the absence of the menfolk. The women bravely fought back but were defeated and it is said that they jumped into the Tapi River, which ran through the village, rather than be captured. The tradition is so strong that even today the day of this disaster (25th day of the Farvardin month) is commemorated in Surat with special religious ceremonies.”
The authors of the book Mani Kamerkar and Soonu Dhunjisha further note that three and a half centuries later “during Shivaji’s attack on Surat in 1664... Shivaji’s troops surrounded the town on all sides and... many men and women were taken prisoners. From reports given by Jadunath Sarkar, Jagannath Laxman Mankar, N. S. Takakhav and Jamshed Kekobad, Surat had a fort, but no wall around it at the time of the attack. As mentioned Surat was the emporium of international trade and also the port of exit for the Haj journey. The city was therefore extremely wealthy with a population of two lakh. The rich occupied the river frontage, which included the spacious house of Rustom Manek. Shivaji was attracted to Surat and after sacking it a number of times, he called it the key to his treasure. Shivaji’s chief object was to amass wealth by plundering this rich city. His army consisted of 10,000 mawlis lead by Moropant Pingle and Prataprao Guzar. On hearing of the approach of Shivaji’s army from the direction of Gandevi, the people began to leave the city for villages on the other side of the river.
“The governor, Inayat Khan fled into the fort, without arranging for any protection for the people who were left to fend for themselves. Some rich men took shelter in the fort by paying the commandant. It seems, the people were left helpless and open to abuses and loot. Many of the rich and wealthy traders did not even have guards to protect them and their property. The foreign companies, the English, Dutch, Armenians and Turks, guarded their own factories with their soldiers and showed the courage<
◆ ◆ ◆
From the archive