Politics of day indulges in cherry-picking facts: Jaishankar on Tipu Sultan

History is ‘complicated’ and the politics of the day often indulges in “cherry-picking facts” and to a considerable extent that has happened in Tipu Sultan’s case, External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar has said here.

He claimed a “particular narrative” about the former ruler of Mysore has been advanced over the years.

In his address at the launch of the book ‘Tipu Sultan: The Saga of Mysore Interregnum 1761-1799’ on Saturday, Jaishankar said there are some basic questions that “confront us all” today as to how much of “our past has been airbrushed”, how awkward issues have been “glossed over” and how “facts are tailored for regime convenience”.

The book has been written by historian Vikram Sampath.

The external affairs minister said, “In the last decade, the changes in our political dispensation have encouraged the emergence of alternative perspectives and balanced accounts.”

“We are no longer prisoners of a vote bank, nor is it politically incorrect to bring out inconvenient truths. There are many more subjects on which the same degree of objectivity is needed,” he said.

The minister said open-minded scholarship and a genuine debate are central to “our evolution as a pluralistic society and vibrant democracy”.

Jaishankar underlined that Tipu Sultan is a “complex figure” in Indian history.

“On one hand, he has a reputation as a key figure who resisted the imposition of British colonial control over India. It is a fact that his defeat and death can be considered a turning point when it came to the fate of peninsular India. At the same time, he evokes strong adverse sentiments, even today, in many regions, by some in Mysore itself, in Coorg and Malabar,” he said.

Contemporary history writings, certainly at the national level, have focussed largely on the former aspect, “underplaying, if not neglecting,” the latter, Jaishankar claimed. “This was not an accident.”

“History in all society is complicated and the politics of the day often indulges in cherry-picking facts. To a considerable extent that has happened in the case of Tipu Sultan,” he said.

By highlighting the “Tipu-English binary” to the “exclusion of a more complicated reality, a particular narrative has been advanced over the years”, the minister said.

Asserting that to call Sampath’s book a biography would be a serious understatement, he said, “It is something very much more, capturing the flavour of a fast-moving and complicated era but offering insights into politics, strategy, administration, sociology and even diplomacy.”

Jaishankar said the book not only presents facts about Tipu Sultan for the reader to make their own judgement but also brings out the context in all its intricacy. In that process, Sampath would have had many “challenges of orthodoxy to overcome,” the minister underlined.

“These, I must say, are not specific to the treatment of Tipu Sultan, how much of our past has been airbrushed, how awkward issues have been glossed over, how facts are tailored for regime convenience. These are basic questions which confront us all today,” he said.

Jaishankar said that as a “product myself of an institution” that was at the centre of these “politically driven endeavours”, he could well appreciate the need to present an “actual representation” of history.

There can be no doubt that Tipu Sultan was fiercely and almost consistently anti-British. But how much of it was inherent and a result of their allying with his local rivals, that is difficult to distinguish, he posited.

To counter British ambitions, Tipu Sultan had no hesitation in collaborating with the French and that makes a “straightforward anti-foreign narrative” very difficult to assert, he said.

Jaishankar also touched on the foreign policy aspect of Tipu Sultan.

At various points he reached out to the rulers of Turkey, Afghanistan and Persia for faith-based support, he said, adding perhaps the truth is that “the sense of nationhood, all of us have now, was simply not there then”.

“When identities and awareness were so different at that time, force-fitting them into a contemporary construct seems more than a little challengeable,” the minister added.

But, more touchy are a set of related issues about Tipu’s treatment of his people and those of neighbouring kingdoms, he said.

There are Tipu’s writings, communications and actions that “attest to his mindset”. Even his diplomatic activities reflected his faith and identity in the strongest terms, Jaishankar said.

“The author, in my view has been sensible in opening them up all to daylight,” he said.

“After all, nothing is more revealing than the self-description of rulers, the nature of their orders and the content of their conversations. Undoubtedly, there will also be policies and incidents of contradictory nature.”

This larger assessment of Tipu’s character has to get that “balance right”, the minister said.

Jaishankar said, “From the diplomatic world, I am most struck and grateful for the information and insights provided in this volume about Tipu’s foreign policy.”

In India, people have tended to study mainly post-Independence foreign policies, he said, adding “who knows, perhaps this too was a conscious choice”.

The fact is that many of the kingdoms and states in India forayed into international affairs in previous centuries in pursuance of their particular interests. And some continued to do so even till Independence, he asserted.

Jaishankar said the interaction of Tipu’s emissary with their French and Turkish counterparts is fascinating, adding that Tipu’s expectations from his foreign partners and the incentive he offers them “tells us something about his mindset”.

“There are lessons about the importance of accurately understanding global developments. On crucial occasions, Tipu was actually caught on the wrong side of the events in France,” he said.

Jaishankar said that he got to know from the book that French emperor Napoleon had written to Tipu Sultan. But he never got those letters, he said. “Ironically, the British as is their habit, stole many things.”

Ironically, Tipu’s fate was decided largely by diplomacy since the British created such an all-encompassing coalition. That he was left “so friendless at the end should itself be a cause for introspection”, he said.