Pioneer 4th May2004
Saudi halo over US academia
Sandhya Jain
As Iraq gets murkier and Uncle Sam loses credibility in the war on terror, American analysts are waking up to the extent to which Saudi funds have penetrated the nation’s soft underbelly. According to Lee Kaplan, Saudis have pumped massive funds into leading educational institutions as part of a concerted plan to turn American academia against Israel and in favour of their vision of a global Muslim state in which Jews, Christians and other infidels will have subordinate status to the followers of Islam (FrontPageMagazine 5 April 2004).
Wahhabism is rabidly anti-West and scorns religious tolerance and human rights. Western attempts to promote democratic reforms in the House of Saud are seen as an insult to Islam; hence Saudi royals have waged a genteel jihad through ideas (i.e., paid the intellectual pipers of the West), even while financing Al Qaeda and Palestinian radicals. The US Senate Judiciary Committee recently found that the Saudi kingdom controlled most Muslim bodies in the country, paying 80% of the mortgages on mosques.
In just three decades, the Saudi royal family has donated over US $70 billion to indoctrinate worldwide institutions against the West and Israel. American academics naturally deny the funds have strings attached, yet it seems reasonable to ask, as Kaplan does, why a theocratic regime with 30% to 50% of its population illiterate, would take more interest in the US educational system than in its own.
Saudi gifts to American institutions are mind-boggling. King Fahd donated US $20 million to establish the Middle East Studies Center at the University of Arkansas. Two Saudi financiers of Al Qaeda gave US $5 million to UC Berkeley’s Center For Middle East Studies. Then, Harvard got US $2.5 million; Georgetown US $8.1 million, including a $500,000 scholarship in the name of President Bush; Cornell US $11 million; MIT US $5 million; Texas A&M US $1.5 million and Princeton US $1 million. Rutgers received US $5 million to endow a chair, as did Columbia. Several other universities also received Saudi largesse.
It is not difficult to see how this translates into mind control. American conservatives point out that by funding Middle East Studies Centers and endowed chairs on campuses across the country, the Saudis were able to determine the curriculum taught to American students about the situation in the Middle East. This curriculum is anti-West, anti-Christian, anti-Jew, and moulds students to hate Israel and to hate America as an “imperialist” or “racist” nation.
Historian Martin Kramer laments that Columbia University has become “Bir Zeit on-the-Hudson.” Bir Zeit university was created by Israel for Palestinians in the West Bank, but rather than serving their educational needs, turned into a breeding ground for terrorist ideologues, with faculty writing against the US and Israel. At Columbia, Palestinians dominate modern Middle East teaching and discourage diversity of opinion.
A chair endowed by Saudi money is filled by academics renowned for their Palestinian or Saudi activism rather than their scholarship. Columbia's new “Edward Said Chair Of Arab Studies” went to Rashid Khalidi, a University of Chicago historian and Palestinian activist. Said was an English literature professor with specialization on Jane Austen, but his anti-American and anti-Israel views dominated Middle East studies across America. Columbia’s Middle East department has another anti-US, anti-Israel Palestinian professor, Joseph Massad. Between Khalidi and Massad, students will be exposed to a one-dimensional view of the Gulf.
The situation has become so lop-sided that Lisa Anderson, head of International Studies at Columbia, publicly admitted that Middle East Studies at Columbia and other campuses are not balanced. Far more serious is the fact that Columbia tried to conceal the source of funds for the Edward Said Chair until pressure from outside academics and the legal requirements of the State of New York compelled disclosure.
Saudi endowed chairs and departments have produced college faculty who mouth the very propaganda provided to children in Saudi Arabian schools. For instance, Connecticut State University’s Norton Mezvinsky says Judaism is a religion of “racism” whose adherents believe the “blood of non-Jews has no intrinsic value” and that the killing of non-Jews does “not constitute murder according to the Jewish religion.” Joel Beinin, Middle East Studies Professor at Stanford, rants against America's “Zionist lobby” that uses power “to make and unmake regimes.”
Joel Beinin is also the sole guest lecturer to the University of Arkansas’ Middle East Studies department, funded by King Fahd. It offers an Arabic language course. A sample newsletter published by the department has a full-page poem translated by some students, called “A Letter To A Faraway Friend” (from inside the occupied territory). It subtly demeans Israel and praises martyrdom and death. The rot has spread to virtually every campus. Harvard received US $2 million. At its graduation ceremony, student Zayed Yasin spoke eloquently on “My American Jihad,” supported Hamas, and said suicide bombers should be paid. He also raised funds for the Holy Land Foundation, an Islamic charity shut down by the Bush administration as an Al-Qaeda front.
What has particularly upset conservatives is that while these departments are created by Saudi money, they also receive matching State funds through a Cold War provision known as Title VI. After 11 September 2002, Title VI funded an additional 118 Middle East Resource Centers at US colleges and universities to teach Arabic and promote security analysis. But rather than serving the needs of the military and intelligence services, most departments permitted students the luxury of low standards of Arabic and focused on research articles serving the cause of jihad.
Title VI money not only pays the salaries of academics advancing Saudi interests, but also supports activists whose reach extends beyond the campuses. The combined funding for Middle East centers provides stipends, scholarships and fellowships to Gulf students, thus supporting their work as activists. Some students have trained in activism overseas during the summer, and returned to US campuses to deploy their skills, creating an anti-American and anti-Israeli atmosphere. This has resulted in an increase in anti-Semitic attacks on college campuses. Some time ago, Jewish students at San Francisco State had to be escorted to safety by city police during a pro-Israel rally. At Concordia University, 1500 “students” showed up to create a riot and prevent former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu from speaking on terrorism; ticket holders needed police escort off campus as well.
Kaplan feels it is time to curb the abuse of Title VI. Academic departments with political agendas violate the principles of Academic Freedom established by the American Association of University Professors. In fact, the US Congress has begun to examine the manner in which it provides Title VI funding; universities would do well to scrutinize the manner in which they receive and utilize funds.
I can empathize with American conservatives as India has also suffered from the domination of pro-Islam, anti-India, Leftist intellectuals. Under their hegemony, Indian universities refused to recognize, leave alone tolerate, diversity of opinion. But whereas our intellectuals failed in their core objective of de-nationalizing Indians and weaning them away from their culture and traditions, anti-Americanism has reached dangerous proportions in American society as a whole. What an irony: America is the main inspiration and support of India’s de-nationalized intellectuals and even today accords more importance to a Romila Thapar as opposed to B.B. Lal.
End of Matter
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Jihad vs. the politically correct
Pioneer 13th July 2004
Jihad vs. the politically correct
Sandhya Jain
Even as political correctness makes candid discussion about Islamic fundamentalism virtually impossible, concerned intellectuals the world over are cautiously determined to analyze the concept of jihad and its implications for non-Islamic societies. Ever alert to such dangers, Muslim organizations and their fellow travellers are trying to whitewash the term that noted journalist M.J. Akbar bluntly designated the “signature tune” of Islam.
Shrugging aside such candour, the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) lamented the misuse (sic) of the holy word, claiming jihad has nothing to do with terror (Daily Excelsior, 27 June 2004). A recent television programme on history textbooks saw a student activist quibbling over the definition of jihad as declaration of war against non-Muslims, which indicates the extent to which evasion and negation have permeated the debate.
This is surprising as the Koran is fairly explicit and leaves little doubt about the meaning of its major tenets. Moreover, the ulema have always interpreted it literally, rather than mystically. The strain felt by the AIMPLB in reforming the community’s divorce law is evidence of this penchant for literalism.
Hence, it is unfair for Muslims to seek refuge in obfuscation while the world struggles to cope with terrorist attacks, from which even Saudi Arabia is not exempt. Investigating why American Muslim converts readily embrace terrorism, Mr. Robert Spencer, director, Jihad Watch, points out that Koranic passages such as the ‘Verse of the Sword’ (Sura 9:5) are perceived by Muslims themselves as sanctifying violent jihad (3 June 2004). In 1991, Cairo’s prestigious Al-Azhar University ruled that a manual on Islamic law, which called jihad “war against non-Muslims,” conformed “to the practice and faith of the orthodox Sunni community.”
This explains why radical Muslims all over the world insist they are not terrorists, but mujahideen (holy warriors engaged in jihad). Violent jihad, says Spencer, has been a constant theme of Islamic history, and though dormant in Europe for over three centuries, has never been rejected or discarded by Islamic theology. Buttressing this argument, former Director-General of Police R.K. Ohri, points to a saying attributed to the Prophet: “Paradise comes under the shade of swords.” In a meticulously researched work, Long March of Islam, Mr. Ohri emphasizes that the tradition of jihad began with the Prophet, who approved more than eighty jihads in his lifetime and personally led more than twenty, known as ‘Ghazwahs’. The term ‘ghazi,’ warrior who has killed in the service of the faith, is etymologically related to Ghazwah.
Jihad, Ohri contends, has a long history in India, and continues to be a contemporary reality. Apart from the innumerable jihads waged by successive invading armies, there have been at least three prominent jihads in the modern era. The first was in 1824, when Sayyid Ahmed incited the Yusufzai tribes for Targhib-ul-Jihad against the Sikh kingdom, where the azaan (summons to prayer) and cow slaughter were banned. Though many Muslims from present-day Uttar Pradesh heeded his call, Ahmed and his mujahideen were routed by the Sikh army.
A few years later, Sayyid Ahmed managed to seize the Peshawar valley. But his strict enforcement of Islamic law as interpreted by the puritanical Wahabi school, rapidly disillusioned the Pathan tribes. One night, while he was away with some devoted soldiers, they murdered all his followers. Sayyid Ahmed suffered another reverse while confronting the Sikh general, Hari Singh Nalwa. In 1830, he again faced the Sikhs in Hazara district, where he lost his life in the battle of Balakot.
After a quiescent phase, the Wahabis turned their ire against Britain for declaring war on Turkey in 1914, but all jihad-related activity between 1915 and 1919 failed to yield success. The second major jihad was called by the Khilafat Committee and other Muslim groups after the First World War, when the British and French armies captured Constantinople and abolished the Ottoman Caliphate. This jihad was also a flop. Called by Mohammad Ali, Shaukat Ali, Hasrat Mohani and Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, it witnessed the ridiculous migration and ruin of around eighteen thousand Muslim families who sold their belongings for hijrat to Afghanistan, which was declared Dar ul Islam (land of the pure). But this jihad showed its nasty face in the Malabar, where thousands of Hindus were massacred, women outraged, temples desecrated and forced conversions made to Islam; the violence stopped only when British troops reached the area and restored order.
It is the third jihad that is the most evocative, and continues to cast a heavy shadow on our age. Declared by the All India Muslim League in 1946, it called for the creation of Pakistan. Calcutta (Kolkata) Mayor, Mohammed Usman, issued the “Munajat for Jihad,” which, inter alia, stated: “We are starting a Jehad in Your Name in this very Month of Ramzan… enable us to establish the Kingdom of Islam in India…. The Muslims in China, Manchuria, Mongolia, Malaya, Java and Sumatra are all fighting for their freedom….”
This jihad was a resounding success, thanks in no small measure to H. S. Suhrawardy, Muslim League Minister in charge of Law and Order. Though Calcutta had a Hindu majority, the strategic transfer of Hindu police officers from key posts saw a veritable massacre of the population on 16 August 1946, which the League designated as ‘Direct Action Day.’ With Muslim police officers in charge of twenty-two police stations, and Anglo-Indians controlling the remaining two, the mob had a field day, with a complicit British bureaucracy failing to call the army till Hindus and Sikhs began to organize and fight back.
The most revelatory statement in the Direct Action Day jihad proclamation was the reference to the plight of Muslims in China, Mongolia, Malaya, Java, Sumatra as well as several Arab and African countries, which were fighting for freedom and the establishment of a “very strong Islamic kingdom in this world”. The creation of Pakistan, Ohri asserts, was the first step in that direction, and the action is now visible in all countries mentioned in the “Munajat for Jihad” proclamation.
Unlike India’s ostrich-like media, leading newspapers abroad are beginning to look sharply at Islam’s close affinity with the culture of bombs and explosives. The New York Times is following the Manhattan trial of one Mohammed Junaid Babar, 29-year-old grandson of Pakistani immigrants, accused of aiding a plot to blow up British pubs, railway stations and restaurants. Pleading guilty in a sealed court, Babar said his grandfather imbued him with a strong sense of Muslim loyalty. In an interview broadcast by ITN Five News, Canada, some months after 9/11, he said: “I did grow up there, but that doesn't mean that my loyalty is with the Americans. My loyalty has always been, is and forever will be, with the Muslims” (New York Times, 17 June 2004). At the time of the interview, Babar had given up a lucrative $70,000-a-year job to go to Pakistan, where he was waiting to be smuggled into Afghanistan to fight American troops.
To conclude, jihad is an integral component of Islamic theology, the call for which can be given as and when expedient. Disregarding this reality under the pretext of political correctness not only facilitates Islamic radicals in accomplishing their goals, but also liberates the so-called moderates (read apologists) from the moral obligation to reject and oppose this violent doctrine.
End of matter
Jihad vs. the politically correct
Sandhya Jain
Even as political correctness makes candid discussion about Islamic fundamentalism virtually impossible, concerned intellectuals the world over are cautiously determined to analyze the concept of jihad and its implications for non-Islamic societies. Ever alert to such dangers, Muslim organizations and their fellow travellers are trying to whitewash the term that noted journalist M.J. Akbar bluntly designated the “signature tune” of Islam.
Shrugging aside such candour, the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) lamented the misuse (sic) of the holy word, claiming jihad has nothing to do with terror (Daily Excelsior, 27 June 2004). A recent television programme on history textbooks saw a student activist quibbling over the definition of jihad as declaration of war against non-Muslims, which indicates the extent to which evasion and negation have permeated the debate.
This is surprising as the Koran is fairly explicit and leaves little doubt about the meaning of its major tenets. Moreover, the ulema have always interpreted it literally, rather than mystically. The strain felt by the AIMPLB in reforming the community’s divorce law is evidence of this penchant for literalism.
Hence, it is unfair for Muslims to seek refuge in obfuscation while the world struggles to cope with terrorist attacks, from which even Saudi Arabia is not exempt. Investigating why American Muslim converts readily embrace terrorism, Mr. Robert Spencer, director, Jihad Watch, points out that Koranic passages such as the ‘Verse of the Sword’ (Sura 9:5) are perceived by Muslims themselves as sanctifying violent jihad (3 June 2004). In 1991, Cairo’s prestigious Al-Azhar University ruled that a manual on Islamic law, which called jihad “war against non-Muslims,” conformed “to the practice and faith of the orthodox Sunni community.”
This explains why radical Muslims all over the world insist they are not terrorists, but mujahideen (holy warriors engaged in jihad). Violent jihad, says Spencer, has been a constant theme of Islamic history, and though dormant in Europe for over three centuries, has never been rejected or discarded by Islamic theology. Buttressing this argument, former Director-General of Police R.K. Ohri, points to a saying attributed to the Prophet: “Paradise comes under the shade of swords.” In a meticulously researched work, Long March of Islam, Mr. Ohri emphasizes that the tradition of jihad began with the Prophet, who approved more than eighty jihads in his lifetime and personally led more than twenty, known as ‘Ghazwahs’. The term ‘ghazi,’ warrior who has killed in the service of the faith, is etymologically related to Ghazwah.
Jihad, Ohri contends, has a long history in India, and continues to be a contemporary reality. Apart from the innumerable jihads waged by successive invading armies, there have been at least three prominent jihads in the modern era. The first was in 1824, when Sayyid Ahmed incited the Yusufzai tribes for Targhib-ul-Jihad against the Sikh kingdom, where the azaan (summons to prayer) and cow slaughter were banned. Though many Muslims from present-day Uttar Pradesh heeded his call, Ahmed and his mujahideen were routed by the Sikh army.
A few years later, Sayyid Ahmed managed to seize the Peshawar valley. But his strict enforcement of Islamic law as interpreted by the puritanical Wahabi school, rapidly disillusioned the Pathan tribes. One night, while he was away with some devoted soldiers, they murdered all his followers. Sayyid Ahmed suffered another reverse while confronting the Sikh general, Hari Singh Nalwa. In 1830, he again faced the Sikhs in Hazara district, where he lost his life in the battle of Balakot.
After a quiescent phase, the Wahabis turned their ire against Britain for declaring war on Turkey in 1914, but all jihad-related activity between 1915 and 1919 failed to yield success. The second major jihad was called by the Khilafat Committee and other Muslim groups after the First World War, when the British and French armies captured Constantinople and abolished the Ottoman Caliphate. This jihad was also a flop. Called by Mohammad Ali, Shaukat Ali, Hasrat Mohani and Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, it witnessed the ridiculous migration and ruin of around eighteen thousand Muslim families who sold their belongings for hijrat to Afghanistan, which was declared Dar ul Islam (land of the pure). But this jihad showed its nasty face in the Malabar, where thousands of Hindus were massacred, women outraged, temples desecrated and forced conversions made to Islam; the violence stopped only when British troops reached the area and restored order.
It is the third jihad that is the most evocative, and continues to cast a heavy shadow on our age. Declared by the All India Muslim League in 1946, it called for the creation of Pakistan. Calcutta (Kolkata) Mayor, Mohammed Usman, issued the “Munajat for Jihad,” which, inter alia, stated: “We are starting a Jehad in Your Name in this very Month of Ramzan… enable us to establish the Kingdom of Islam in India…. The Muslims in China, Manchuria, Mongolia, Malaya, Java and Sumatra are all fighting for their freedom….”
This jihad was a resounding success, thanks in no small measure to H. S. Suhrawardy, Muslim League Minister in charge of Law and Order. Though Calcutta had a Hindu majority, the strategic transfer of Hindu police officers from key posts saw a veritable massacre of the population on 16 August 1946, which the League designated as ‘Direct Action Day.’ With Muslim police officers in charge of twenty-two police stations, and Anglo-Indians controlling the remaining two, the mob had a field day, with a complicit British bureaucracy failing to call the army till Hindus and Sikhs began to organize and fight back.
The most revelatory statement in the Direct Action Day jihad proclamation was the reference to the plight of Muslims in China, Mongolia, Malaya, Java, Sumatra as well as several Arab and African countries, which were fighting for freedom and the establishment of a “very strong Islamic kingdom in this world”. The creation of Pakistan, Ohri asserts, was the first step in that direction, and the action is now visible in all countries mentioned in the “Munajat for Jihad” proclamation.
Unlike India’s ostrich-like media, leading newspapers abroad are beginning to look sharply at Islam’s close affinity with the culture of bombs and explosives. The New York Times is following the Manhattan trial of one Mohammed Junaid Babar, 29-year-old grandson of Pakistani immigrants, accused of aiding a plot to blow up British pubs, railway stations and restaurants. Pleading guilty in a sealed court, Babar said his grandfather imbued him with a strong sense of Muslim loyalty. In an interview broadcast by ITN Five News, Canada, some months after 9/11, he said: “I did grow up there, but that doesn't mean that my loyalty is with the Americans. My loyalty has always been, is and forever will be, with the Muslims” (New York Times, 17 June 2004). At the time of the interview, Babar had given up a lucrative $70,000-a-year job to go to Pakistan, where he was waiting to be smuggled into Afghanistan to fight American troops.
To conclude, jihad is an integral component of Islamic theology, the call for which can be given as and when expedient. Disregarding this reality under the pretext of political correctness not only facilitates Islamic radicals in accomplishing their goals, but also liberates the so-called moderates (read apologists) from the moral obligation to reject and oppose this violent doctrine.
End of matter
A history of impotent rage
Pioneer 4th December 2001
A history of impotent rage
By Sandhya Jain
Anybody with a nodding acquaintance with the ideas of His Holiness Karl Marx (peace be upon him) would know that he analyzed Europe’s declining feudalism and rising mercantilism and propounded the theory that economic forces have independent power to change societies, and that the politics of individual rulers play only a superficial role in making history. Marx’s ideas were Euro-centric, driven by his interest in the depraved status of the English industrial working class, yet have merit as an appraisal of a critical phase in European history. Notwithstanding the strenuous exertions of Marxists, however, they are not the Revealed Word (sruti) and are not valid at all times for all places.
Discerning readers following the hysterical diatribes of Leftist academics against NCERT’s decision to delete objectionable material from textbooks and commission new ones, will be struck by the paradox that Indian Marxist are heavily dependent on political muscle to disseminate their views. They have an amusing lack of faith in the power of the economic process, divorced from ideological control, to determine the contours of history.
That is why the civilizational proclivities of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party are being lambasted for sponsoring the move to update the inelegantly written, voluminous textbooks with which students have been punished for nearly four decades. As the mother of a school-going child, I may mention that the impugned books are unreadable. While it is premature to comment on the quality of the new books, I am relieved that the current drivel is finding its way to the dustbin of history.
The truth behind the escalating decibel-value of the textbook controversy is that the comrades are aware that unlike Europe, the turning points in Indian history have not come from economic developments which acquired their own momentum and shaped the emerging polity. Marxists recognize the deeper truth that history is essentially the story of civilizational memory, accomplishments, and continuity.
Mother India, despite the successive oppressions of three millennarian traditions, has retained her civilizational memory with impressive tenacity in the deep recesses of her soul. This has imparted an inspiring resilience and continuity to the nation’s foundational ethos, enabling it to withstand the trauma of the Islamic invasions, the subtler undermining by Christian colonialism, and the crude assault by the people of the red book. India’s unique cultural heritage has been demonized, marginalized, even declared non-existent. But like the mysterious Saraswati that birthed the Vedic tradition, she has maintained a subterranean presence, permeating the Hindu psyche with a soul-stirring narrative of her own.
Marxists fear that with the ouster of their distorted accounts, the suppressed history of India may come centrestage. This does not mean, as Sumit Sarkar viciously suggests, that history will become “a collection of moral fables” or that the scientific explanation for eclipses may be banned for hurting the belief that they are caused by Rahu (The Times of India, 2 December 2001). Were he better educated, Sarkar would know that few ancient civilizations rivalled India’s knowledge of astronomy. Unlike his European mentors, the Vedic people always knew that the earth moved around the sun.
Long nurtured on state sponsorship provided by the Congress and United Front-type coalitions, Marxists are finding it difficult to adjust to the loss of totalitarian control over the country’s thought processes. Notwithstanding their still formidable domination of academic institutions and funding agencies, they have no control over independent scholarship in India or abroad. Of course, they have tried to overcome this inconvenience by Soviet-style purging of Indian and western scholarship from graduate and post-graduate history courses, which are the real levels at which students should be exposed to conflicting viewpoints and research findings so that they can arrive at independent conclusions.
Despite grandiose declarations about free debate and scientific rigour, the Marxist view of history can survive only when presented as revealed truth, like the Koran and Hadith in madrasas. A look at the critique of “eminent historian” R.S. Sharma’s work, Indian Feudalism, by Andre Wink, Professor of History, University of Wisconsin, Madison, would substantiate this argument.
In Al-Hind: The Making of the Indo-Islamic World (Vol. I), Wink castigates Sharma for misguiding historians to look for Indian parallels to European feudalism. Sharma contends that the “absence of finds of gold coins” in the seventh to tenth centuries proves that the Indian economy was exclusively rural with trade and urbanism having suffered a distinct decline. Rubbishing this claim, Wink points out that the “texts refer to the abundant use of coined money and land charters speak of taxes in gold and there remains evidence of commercial activity on the coasts.” He also ridicules Sharma’s assertion that land grants to Brahmins amount to political feudalism.
Wink concludes that Sharma’s thesis “involves an obstinate attempt to find ‘elements’ which fit a preconceived picture of what should have happened in India because it happened in Europe (or is alleged to have happened in Europe by Sharma and his school of historians whose knowledge of European history is rudimentary and completely outdated)… The methodological underpinnings of Sharma’s work are in fact so thin that one wonders why, for so long, Sharma’s colleagues have called his work ‘pioneering.’”
If Andre Wink, who is no saffron scholar, holds this opinion about the man handpicked by then Education Minister Nurul Hasan to head to Indian Council of Historical Research (ICHR) and fund the now-challenged genre of historiography, one is within one’s right to question the accuracy and integrity of other works as well. In the context of the textbook controversy, the assertion that twenty-three Jain Tirthankaras are fictional is worthy of contempt. Wink also scorns the work of D. Desai and G.C. Choudhary, as also K.A. Nizami, who has glorified the Turkish conquest of northern India for ending the alleged isolation that encompassed India from the eighth century.
The discerning reader would be savvy enough to realize that the objective of Leftist scholarship is to prove, despite all available evidence, that the Islamic invasion was really India’s age of enlightenment. Hence the denigration of the Vedic Age and the stubborn insistence that the Aryans were not indigenous people. This is why Bipin Chandra protests if medieval Muslim rulers are described as “foreign” (Hindustan Times, 2 December 2001). Objecting to the “artificial glorification of all and sundry who fought against Sultanate and Mughal rulers,” he derides glorification of ancient India as “undue national pride has its own negative aspects.”
Chandra must not be allowed to get away with his innuendoes. He must explain how the invasions of Turks, Central Asians, Mongols, Afghans et al can be considered non-foreign? He must also explicitly state if he thinks that Prithviraj Chauhan, Rana Pratap and Chatrapati Shivaji were traitors for resisting the Islamic invaders. Above all, he must elucidate the “negative aspects” produced by national pride.
Finally, our secular politicians have called textbook revision “talibanisation” of education, while a historian claims that the Prime Minister has no right to issue a fatwa that one-sided history must be changed. I am baffled that all the abuse is in Arabic. Perhaps there are no terms of engagement in Indian languages for a contest that is essentially non-Indian in perspective. But I do wonder if the comrades are aware that Osama bin Laden and his Taliban are heroes to Muslims everywhere, and that ‘talibanisation’ cannot logically be the chosen abuse for Islam’s perceived adversaries?
End of matter
A history of impotent rage
By Sandhya Jain
Anybody with a nodding acquaintance with the ideas of His Holiness Karl Marx (peace be upon him) would know that he analyzed Europe’s declining feudalism and rising mercantilism and propounded the theory that economic forces have independent power to change societies, and that the politics of individual rulers play only a superficial role in making history. Marx’s ideas were Euro-centric, driven by his interest in the depraved status of the English industrial working class, yet have merit as an appraisal of a critical phase in European history. Notwithstanding the strenuous exertions of Marxists, however, they are not the Revealed Word (sruti) and are not valid at all times for all places.
Discerning readers following the hysterical diatribes of Leftist academics against NCERT’s decision to delete objectionable material from textbooks and commission new ones, will be struck by the paradox that Indian Marxist are heavily dependent on political muscle to disseminate their views. They have an amusing lack of faith in the power of the economic process, divorced from ideological control, to determine the contours of history.
That is why the civilizational proclivities of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party are being lambasted for sponsoring the move to update the inelegantly written, voluminous textbooks with which students have been punished for nearly four decades. As the mother of a school-going child, I may mention that the impugned books are unreadable. While it is premature to comment on the quality of the new books, I am relieved that the current drivel is finding its way to the dustbin of history.
The truth behind the escalating decibel-value of the textbook controversy is that the comrades are aware that unlike Europe, the turning points in Indian history have not come from economic developments which acquired their own momentum and shaped the emerging polity. Marxists recognize the deeper truth that history is essentially the story of civilizational memory, accomplishments, and continuity.
Mother India, despite the successive oppressions of three millennarian traditions, has retained her civilizational memory with impressive tenacity in the deep recesses of her soul. This has imparted an inspiring resilience and continuity to the nation’s foundational ethos, enabling it to withstand the trauma of the Islamic invasions, the subtler undermining by Christian colonialism, and the crude assault by the people of the red book. India’s unique cultural heritage has been demonized, marginalized, even declared non-existent. But like the mysterious Saraswati that birthed the Vedic tradition, she has maintained a subterranean presence, permeating the Hindu psyche with a soul-stirring narrative of her own.
Marxists fear that with the ouster of their distorted accounts, the suppressed history of India may come centrestage. This does not mean, as Sumit Sarkar viciously suggests, that history will become “a collection of moral fables” or that the scientific explanation for eclipses may be banned for hurting the belief that they are caused by Rahu (The Times of India, 2 December 2001). Were he better educated, Sarkar would know that few ancient civilizations rivalled India’s knowledge of astronomy. Unlike his European mentors, the Vedic people always knew that the earth moved around the sun.
Long nurtured on state sponsorship provided by the Congress and United Front-type coalitions, Marxists are finding it difficult to adjust to the loss of totalitarian control over the country’s thought processes. Notwithstanding their still formidable domination of academic institutions and funding agencies, they have no control over independent scholarship in India or abroad. Of course, they have tried to overcome this inconvenience by Soviet-style purging of Indian and western scholarship from graduate and post-graduate history courses, which are the real levels at which students should be exposed to conflicting viewpoints and research findings so that they can arrive at independent conclusions.
Despite grandiose declarations about free debate and scientific rigour, the Marxist view of history can survive only when presented as revealed truth, like the Koran and Hadith in madrasas. A look at the critique of “eminent historian” R.S. Sharma’s work, Indian Feudalism, by Andre Wink, Professor of History, University of Wisconsin, Madison, would substantiate this argument.
In Al-Hind: The Making of the Indo-Islamic World (Vol. I), Wink castigates Sharma for misguiding historians to look for Indian parallels to European feudalism. Sharma contends that the “absence of finds of gold coins” in the seventh to tenth centuries proves that the Indian economy was exclusively rural with trade and urbanism having suffered a distinct decline. Rubbishing this claim, Wink points out that the “texts refer to the abundant use of coined money and land charters speak of taxes in gold and there remains evidence of commercial activity on the coasts.” He also ridicules Sharma’s assertion that land grants to Brahmins amount to political feudalism.
Wink concludes that Sharma’s thesis “involves an obstinate attempt to find ‘elements’ which fit a preconceived picture of what should have happened in India because it happened in Europe (or is alleged to have happened in Europe by Sharma and his school of historians whose knowledge of European history is rudimentary and completely outdated)… The methodological underpinnings of Sharma’s work are in fact so thin that one wonders why, for so long, Sharma’s colleagues have called his work ‘pioneering.’”
If Andre Wink, who is no saffron scholar, holds this opinion about the man handpicked by then Education Minister Nurul Hasan to head to Indian Council of Historical Research (ICHR) and fund the now-challenged genre of historiography, one is within one’s right to question the accuracy and integrity of other works as well. In the context of the textbook controversy, the assertion that twenty-three Jain Tirthankaras are fictional is worthy of contempt. Wink also scorns the work of D. Desai and G.C. Choudhary, as also K.A. Nizami, who has glorified the Turkish conquest of northern India for ending the alleged isolation that encompassed India from the eighth century.
The discerning reader would be savvy enough to realize that the objective of Leftist scholarship is to prove, despite all available evidence, that the Islamic invasion was really India’s age of enlightenment. Hence the denigration of the Vedic Age and the stubborn insistence that the Aryans were not indigenous people. This is why Bipin Chandra protests if medieval Muslim rulers are described as “foreign” (Hindustan Times, 2 December 2001). Objecting to the “artificial glorification of all and sundry who fought against Sultanate and Mughal rulers,” he derides glorification of ancient India as “undue national pride has its own negative aspects.”
Chandra must not be allowed to get away with his innuendoes. He must explain how the invasions of Turks, Central Asians, Mongols, Afghans et al can be considered non-foreign? He must also explicitly state if he thinks that Prithviraj Chauhan, Rana Pratap and Chatrapati Shivaji were traitors for resisting the Islamic invaders. Above all, he must elucidate the “negative aspects” produced by national pride.
Finally, our secular politicians have called textbook revision “talibanisation” of education, while a historian claims that the Prime Minister has no right to issue a fatwa that one-sided history must be changed. I am baffled that all the abuse is in Arabic. Perhaps there are no terms of engagement in Indian languages for a contest that is essentially non-Indian in perspective. But I do wonder if the comrades are aware that Osama bin Laden and his Taliban are heroes to Muslims everywhere, and that ‘talibanisation’ cannot logically be the chosen abuse for Islam’s perceived adversaries?
End of matter
Did Vedic Hindus really eat cow?
Dainik Hindustan 12th December 2001
Did Vedic Hindus really eat cow?
By Sandhya Jain
Under the pretext of disseminating true knowledge about the past to young, impressionable school children, a perverse assault has been launched upon the religious sensitivities of the Hindu community. Marxist historians allege that ancient Hindus ate beef, that this is recorded in their sacred scriptures, and that this should be taught to school children. The Hindu prohibition on cow slaughter, they say, is a more recent development and Hindus are shying away from this truth because it is intimately linked with their sense of identity.
A Marxist specialist on ancient India, ignorant in both Vedic and Panini’s Sanskrit, claims that the Shatapatha Brahmana and Vasistha Dharmasutra clearly state that guests were honoured by serving beef. She also cites archaeological evidence as reported by H.D. Sankalia and B.B. Lal. While the lady thinks her evidence is irrefutable, I have decided to pick up the gauntlet.
To begin with, the Shatapatha Brahmana is Yajnavalkya’s commentary on the Yajur Veda, and not a revealed text. As for the Vasistha Dharmasutra, the legendary Sanskritist, late P.V. Kane, said, “beyond the name Vasistha there is hardly anything special in the dharmasutra to connect it with the Rgveda.” Kane also added, “grave doubts have been entertained about the authenticity of the whole of the text of the Vas.Dh.S. as the mss. (manuscripts) contain varying numbers of chapters from 6 to 30, and as the text is hopelessly corrupt in several places… many verses…bear the impress of a comparatively late age.” Kane tentatively places this text between 300-100 B.C., that is, long after the end of the Vedic age.
According to archaeologists, the early Vedic age tentatively falls between the fourteen century BC to the first millennium BC. The later Vedic period lies between 1000 BC to 600-700 BC. But if we go by astronomical dating of some of the hymns, we get a period of 7000 BC for a portion of the Vedas.
The honest question, however, is whether the Vedas offer evidence about cow slaughter and beef-eating, and if not, how the controversy arose in the first place. A few clarifications are in order before we proceed. The word ‘cow’ (gau), for instance, is used throughout the Vedas in diverse senses, and, depending on the context of the verse, could mean the animal cow, waters, sun-rays, learned persons, Vedic verses, or Prithvi (earth as Divine Mother).
Then, Vedic society was heterogeneous, pluralistic, and non-vegetarian. In theory, it is possible that the cow was killed and eaten. The fact, however, is that throughout the Vedas the cow is called a non-killable animal, or “aghnya.” According to “An Encyclopaedic Dictionary of Sanskrit on Historical Principles” (Vol. I, Deccan College, Poona), “aghnya” means “not to be killed or violated” and is used for cows and for waters in the presence of which oaths were taken.
The Rig and Sama Veda call the cow “aghnya” and “Aditi”, ie. not to be murdered (Rig 1-64-27; 5-83-8; 7-68-9; 1-164-40; 8-69-2; 9-1-9; 9-93-3; 10-6-11; 10-87-16). They extol the cow as un-killable, un-murderable, whose milk purifies the mind and keeps it free from sin. Verse 10-87-16 prescribes severe punishment for the person who kills a cow. The Atharva Veda recommends beheading (8-3-16) for such a crime; the Rig Veda advocates expulsion from the kingdom (8-101-15).
Hence, it seems unlikely that the cow would be slaughtered to entertain guests, as claimed by Marxist historians. But before coming to any conclusion, the archaeological evidence should also be examined. Archaeologists have excavated bones of cattle in huge quantity, “cattle” is a collective noun which includes the cow, bull, buffalo, nilgai and all other bovine animals. Nowhere in the world can experts differentiate between the bones of cows and other cattle recovered from excavations.
There are good reasons for this difficulty. Most of the bones found are not whole carcasses, but large pieces of limbs. Experts feel that these could be the remains of animals that died naturally and were skinned for their hide and bones. Ancient man used bones to make knives and other tools; the splintered bones found could be part of the tool-making exercise. In all honesty, therefore, cattle bone finds do not prove cow slaughter or the eating of cow meat, especially when all literary evidence points in the opposite direction.
There has been talk about cut-marks on the bones. But apart from tool-making, even if a tanner skins dead cattle for the hide, he will inflict cut marks on the carcass. Scientifically, it is not possible to say if the marks on the bones are ante-mortem or post-mortem. This can be determined only where the body is intact (animal or human), by analyzing blood vessels, tissue, rigor mortis and other factors.
Fortunately, there is now clinching evidence why the Marxist claim on cow-flesh rests on false premises. As already stated, the allegation rests mainly on literary sources and their interpretation, and we are in a position to trace the source of the mischief – the Vachaspatyam of Pandit Taranath and his British mentors.
Pandit Taranath, a professor of grammar at the Calcutta Sanskrit College, compiled a six-volume Sanskrit-to-Sanskrit dictionary, which is used by scholars to this day. The Vachaspatyam is a valuable guide for scholars because there are certain words in the samhita (mantra) section of the Vedas that are not found later in the Puranas.
What most Sanskrit scholars have failed to notice is that Taranath artfully corrupted the meanings of a few crucial words of the Vedic samhita to endorse the meaning given by Max Muller in his translation of the Vedas. Swami Prakashanand Saraswati has exposed this beautifully in “The True History and the Religion of India, A Concise Encyclopedia of Authentic Hinduism” (Motilal Banarsidass).
The British idea was that Max Muller would translate the Rig Veda “in such a scornful manner that Hindus themselves should begin to reproach their own religion of the Vedas,” while a Hindu pandit would “compile an elaborate Sanskrit dictionary that should exhibit disgraceful meanings of certain words of the Vedic mantras.” As Hindus would not question a dictionary by a Hindu pandit, the British would be able to claim that whatever Max Muller wrote about the Vedas was according to the dictionary of the Hindus.
Swami Prakashanand Saraswati focuses on two words – goghn and ashvamedh. “Goghn” means a guest who receives a cow as gift. Panini created a special sutra to establish the rule that goghn will only mean the receiver of a cow (and will not be used in any other sense). But Taranath ignored Panini’s injunction and wrote that “goghn” means “the killer of a cow.” He similarly converted the ashvamedh yagna from ‘ritual worship of the horse’ to the “killing of the horse.”
The Swami proves the British hand in this mischief through the patronage given to Taranath by the Government of Bengal in 1866, when Lt. Governor Sir Cecil Beadon sanctioned ten thousand rupees for two hundred copies of his dictionary. This was a king’s ransom in those days, as even in the 1930s the headmaster of a vernacular primary school received a salary of twenty rupees a month. Today, ten thousand rupees is the equivalent of two million rupees.
When the basic premise upon which all modern translations rest is thus knocked off its pedestal, what beef is left in the theory that Vedic Hindus enjoyed the flesh of the cow? I rest my case.
End of Matter
Did Vedic Hindus really eat cow?
By Sandhya Jain
Under the pretext of disseminating true knowledge about the past to young, impressionable school children, a perverse assault has been launched upon the religious sensitivities of the Hindu community. Marxist historians allege that ancient Hindus ate beef, that this is recorded in their sacred scriptures, and that this should be taught to school children. The Hindu prohibition on cow slaughter, they say, is a more recent development and Hindus are shying away from this truth because it is intimately linked with their sense of identity.
A Marxist specialist on ancient India, ignorant in both Vedic and Panini’s Sanskrit, claims that the Shatapatha Brahmana and Vasistha Dharmasutra clearly state that guests were honoured by serving beef. She also cites archaeological evidence as reported by H.D. Sankalia and B.B. Lal. While the lady thinks her evidence is irrefutable, I have decided to pick up the gauntlet.
To begin with, the Shatapatha Brahmana is Yajnavalkya’s commentary on the Yajur Veda, and not a revealed text. As for the Vasistha Dharmasutra, the legendary Sanskritist, late P.V. Kane, said, “beyond the name Vasistha there is hardly anything special in the dharmasutra to connect it with the Rgveda.” Kane also added, “grave doubts have been entertained about the authenticity of the whole of the text of the Vas.Dh.S. as the mss. (manuscripts) contain varying numbers of chapters from 6 to 30, and as the text is hopelessly corrupt in several places… many verses…bear the impress of a comparatively late age.” Kane tentatively places this text between 300-100 B.C., that is, long after the end of the Vedic age.
According to archaeologists, the early Vedic age tentatively falls between the fourteen century BC to the first millennium BC. The later Vedic period lies between 1000 BC to 600-700 BC. But if we go by astronomical dating of some of the hymns, we get a period of 7000 BC for a portion of the Vedas.
The honest question, however, is whether the Vedas offer evidence about cow slaughter and beef-eating, and if not, how the controversy arose in the first place. A few clarifications are in order before we proceed. The word ‘cow’ (gau), for instance, is used throughout the Vedas in diverse senses, and, depending on the context of the verse, could mean the animal cow, waters, sun-rays, learned persons, Vedic verses, or Prithvi (earth as Divine Mother).
Then, Vedic society was heterogeneous, pluralistic, and non-vegetarian. In theory, it is possible that the cow was killed and eaten. The fact, however, is that throughout the Vedas the cow is called a non-killable animal, or “aghnya.” According to “An Encyclopaedic Dictionary of Sanskrit on Historical Principles” (Vol. I, Deccan College, Poona), “aghnya” means “not to be killed or violated” and is used for cows and for waters in the presence of which oaths were taken.
The Rig and Sama Veda call the cow “aghnya” and “Aditi”, ie. not to be murdered (Rig 1-64-27; 5-83-8; 7-68-9; 1-164-40; 8-69-2; 9-1-9; 9-93-3; 10-6-11; 10-87-16). They extol the cow as un-killable, un-murderable, whose milk purifies the mind and keeps it free from sin. Verse 10-87-16 prescribes severe punishment for the person who kills a cow. The Atharva Veda recommends beheading (8-3-16) for such a crime; the Rig Veda advocates expulsion from the kingdom (8-101-15).
Hence, it seems unlikely that the cow would be slaughtered to entertain guests, as claimed by Marxist historians. But before coming to any conclusion, the archaeological evidence should also be examined. Archaeologists have excavated bones of cattle in huge quantity, “cattle” is a collective noun which includes the cow, bull, buffalo, nilgai and all other bovine animals. Nowhere in the world can experts differentiate between the bones of cows and other cattle recovered from excavations.
There are good reasons for this difficulty. Most of the bones found are not whole carcasses, but large pieces of limbs. Experts feel that these could be the remains of animals that died naturally and were skinned for their hide and bones. Ancient man used bones to make knives and other tools; the splintered bones found could be part of the tool-making exercise. In all honesty, therefore, cattle bone finds do not prove cow slaughter or the eating of cow meat, especially when all literary evidence points in the opposite direction.
There has been talk about cut-marks on the bones. But apart from tool-making, even if a tanner skins dead cattle for the hide, he will inflict cut marks on the carcass. Scientifically, it is not possible to say if the marks on the bones are ante-mortem or post-mortem. This can be determined only where the body is intact (animal or human), by analyzing blood vessels, tissue, rigor mortis and other factors.
Fortunately, there is now clinching evidence why the Marxist claim on cow-flesh rests on false premises. As already stated, the allegation rests mainly on literary sources and their interpretation, and we are in a position to trace the source of the mischief – the Vachaspatyam of Pandit Taranath and his British mentors.
Pandit Taranath, a professor of grammar at the Calcutta Sanskrit College, compiled a six-volume Sanskrit-to-Sanskrit dictionary, which is used by scholars to this day. The Vachaspatyam is a valuable guide for scholars because there are certain words in the samhita (mantra) section of the Vedas that are not found later in the Puranas.
What most Sanskrit scholars have failed to notice is that Taranath artfully corrupted the meanings of a few crucial words of the Vedic samhita to endorse the meaning given by Max Muller in his translation of the Vedas. Swami Prakashanand Saraswati has exposed this beautifully in “The True History and the Religion of India, A Concise Encyclopedia of Authentic Hinduism” (Motilal Banarsidass).
The British idea was that Max Muller would translate the Rig Veda “in such a scornful manner that Hindus themselves should begin to reproach their own religion of the Vedas,” while a Hindu pandit would “compile an elaborate Sanskrit dictionary that should exhibit disgraceful meanings of certain words of the Vedic mantras.” As Hindus would not question a dictionary by a Hindu pandit, the British would be able to claim that whatever Max Muller wrote about the Vedas was according to the dictionary of the Hindus.
Swami Prakashanand Saraswati focuses on two words – goghn and ashvamedh. “Goghn” means a guest who receives a cow as gift. Panini created a special sutra to establish the rule that goghn will only mean the receiver of a cow (and will not be used in any other sense). But Taranath ignored Panini’s injunction and wrote that “goghn” means “the killer of a cow.” He similarly converted the ashvamedh yagna from ‘ritual worship of the horse’ to the “killing of the horse.”
The Swami proves the British hand in this mischief through the patronage given to Taranath by the Government of Bengal in 1866, when Lt. Governor Sir Cecil Beadon sanctioned ten thousand rupees for two hundred copies of his dictionary. This was a king’s ransom in those days, as even in the 1930s the headmaster of a vernacular primary school received a salary of twenty rupees a month. Today, ten thousand rupees is the equivalent of two million rupees.
When the basic premise upon which all modern translations rest is thus knocked off its pedestal, what beef is left in the theory that Vedic Hindus enjoyed the flesh of the cow? I rest my case.
End of Matter
The Stories about History
Pioneer 1st January 2002
The Stories about History
By Sandhya Jain
Madhya Pradesh Chief Minister Digvijay Singh could hardly have realized the irony in his statement, “most of the controversies about history are because too many non-historians are talking about how history should be written.” Alas, instead of taking a leaf from his own book, Singh spoke expansively about the politicization of the subject by fundamentalist groups, whatever that means. Predictably therefore, the Indian History Congress mela in Bhopal became the occasion for Marxists and fellow-travellers to beat their breasts over the Fate of History in the proposed new school books. It is, of course, a different matter that the Congress is supposed to address issues of research methodology and interpretation at higher levels of learning.
Meanwhile, the Stories about History proliferate with bewildering profusion. Some say it is a plot to unveil the hidden truth about the Past; others aver that it is really a ruse to rake in the votes in present-day Politics. Even discerning readers are now confused whether the clamour is over what happened in history or what will happen in UP. In the absence of a credible translation of Nostradamus, we may have to turn to The Red Book of the Dead for an answer.
Ever since the gravy train of a few superannuated historians who wrote their textbooks some decades ago was derailed in the NCERT compound, rivers of vitriol have flowed over the present government’s temerity in trying to replace selective – and even destructive – saga with more inclusive narrative. Yet anyone with a moderate sense of justice can see that the Marxist version of history is not just tainted by Ideology; its cornerstone is a fundamental hostility to Indian nationhood.
The problem is not simply that Marxist scholars have tailored their accounts of the past to conform to Karl Marx’s model of feudalism and early capitalism in Europe. Such an issue would be amenable to reasoned debate. The problem becomes partly visible when we see that Leftists have selectively filtered the annals of the freedom struggle (not to mention the mischief done with other epochs) to deny due accord to those whose sacrifices fired society’s imagination and gave the movement a tremendous boost. But here also, my point is not that an unwarranted cult was built around personalities who became disproportionately powerful in the post-independence period.
The core issue is that in classic Soviet style, state patronage was used to force a non-Indic vision and perspective upon a perplexed nation. Marxist historiography’s goal was to undermine, and if possible eradicate, India’s foundational ethos and its moorings in the world’s most ancient, humane, and living civilization. This is a crime against the people; whoever thinks this an exaggeration may look at the debris of cultures wrecked by barbarians of various religious and political persuasions. Octavio Paz testifies to the annihilation of his native Mexican culture, its national character splintered by the marauding Spanish adventurers and the stifling parallel dictatorship of the Catholic Church; nothing meaningful could be salvaged.
In an era in which the Indic civilization is struggling to reassert its original dominance in the sub-continent, it is hardly surprising that the dispute has broken out in the present form, viz., over the depiction of Jain, Sikh and Jat communities in textbooks for school children. Leftists suggest that the objections were stage-managed (allegedly by the BJP), though the first protests by the Sikh community were mooted through the Congress party in the Delhi Legislative Assembly. This encouraged other groups to come forward even as the Congress, caught on the backfoot, effected a dizzying series of volte-faces after which it mercifully shut up.
What is germane however, is not how the controversy began, but whether there is substance in the anger against the impugned books. This means, are various communities unhappy because they have been presented in a true but unflattering light, or because they have been unjustly portrayed? Broadly, the textbooks render Sikh, Jat and Maratha leaders as plunderers, which Leftist scholars insist is factually correct. Certainly the Jats ransacked Akbar’s tomb at Sikandra and other enemy structures they could lay their hands on; similarly the Marathas levied taxes in their spheres of influence.
But these events seen in isolation cannot be used to insinuate the Marxist conclusion; history is a question of perspective and interpretation. With hindsight, we know that the armed uprisings of the Jats, Marathas and Sikhs against Aurangzeb’s rule resulted in the subsequent establishment of separate kingdoms by each of these communities. We can therefore postulate that each community was motivated by political and not rapacious considerations, as Marxists insist.
In the case of the Sikh Guru, moreover, what is pertinent is not the alleged conduct of his army on the way back from Assam, but the reasons for Teg Bahadur’s travels all over the country. The Guru repeatedly emphasized that the people needed reassurance, which is what he offered them. This comfort, it needs hardly be stressed, was against the horrors of religious persecution by the Mughal state. The last two Sikh Gurus were martyred in circumstances that are widely known; what is noteworthy about their conduct in this period is their study of the Hindu tradition, notably the Gods Rama and Krishna and the Goddess Chandi, to understand the legitimacy of violent means to counter evil forces. The outcome was the birth of the Khalsa.
Regarding Jainism, Leftists virtually castigate the community for claiming that it existed before Mahavira, and taunt that Buddhists should be prompted to make similar claims of antiquity. This is a matter of considerable sensitivity for Jains, but also has a bearing on the larger society as India has always engaged in free exchange of ideas and experiences across the religious-philosophical spectrum. Thus, though distinct groups have a core identity which distinguishes them from others, the notion of watertight compartments is alien to this country.
I have no desire to get embroiled in disputes over the dating of civilization, society, religion et al, but suffice it to say that long before Marxism emerged, the Jain community had explicit ideas about its origin and development. Mahavira was always recognized as the twenty-fourth Tirthankara (ford-maker), and not as the founder of the faith. All twenty-four Tirthankaras have well-developed biographies and genealogies, and from the time that temple and image making began in India, Jains have been building temples with the idols of twenty-four Tirthankaras.
The philosopher Zimmer believed that the twenty-third Tirthankara, Parsvanath, who lived a hundred-odd years before Mahavira, was also a historical figure. The twenty-second ford-maker, Aristanemi, said to have lived eighty-four thousand years before Parsvanath, certainly creates dating problems for modern academics. But Aristanemi’s father was the brother of Vasudev, father of Krishna, another mythological figure whose legendary city has made a magical reappearance from under the sea in our own mundane lifetime. Scholars have already noted an intimate connection between Rishabdev, the first Tirthankara, and Shiva.
Seen in this light, the Jain tapestry forms an inextricable part of the rich and exquisite continuity of India’s civilizational ethos from the earliest times. The suspicion naturally arises if the move to restrict Jainism to the lifetime of a single preceptor is not part of the old, discredited endeavour to divide and diminish Hindu society by projecting it as an aggregate of disparate castes and communities. If so, it is both a poor trick and shoddy scholarship.
End of matter
The Stories about History
By Sandhya Jain
Madhya Pradesh Chief Minister Digvijay Singh could hardly have realized the irony in his statement, “most of the controversies about history are because too many non-historians are talking about how history should be written.” Alas, instead of taking a leaf from his own book, Singh spoke expansively about the politicization of the subject by fundamentalist groups, whatever that means. Predictably therefore, the Indian History Congress mela in Bhopal became the occasion for Marxists and fellow-travellers to beat their breasts over the Fate of History in the proposed new school books. It is, of course, a different matter that the Congress is supposed to address issues of research methodology and interpretation at higher levels of learning.
Meanwhile, the Stories about History proliferate with bewildering profusion. Some say it is a plot to unveil the hidden truth about the Past; others aver that it is really a ruse to rake in the votes in present-day Politics. Even discerning readers are now confused whether the clamour is over what happened in history or what will happen in UP. In the absence of a credible translation of Nostradamus, we may have to turn to The Red Book of the Dead for an answer.
Ever since the gravy train of a few superannuated historians who wrote their textbooks some decades ago was derailed in the NCERT compound, rivers of vitriol have flowed over the present government’s temerity in trying to replace selective – and even destructive – saga with more inclusive narrative. Yet anyone with a moderate sense of justice can see that the Marxist version of history is not just tainted by Ideology; its cornerstone is a fundamental hostility to Indian nationhood.
The problem is not simply that Marxist scholars have tailored their accounts of the past to conform to Karl Marx’s model of feudalism and early capitalism in Europe. Such an issue would be amenable to reasoned debate. The problem becomes partly visible when we see that Leftists have selectively filtered the annals of the freedom struggle (not to mention the mischief done with other epochs) to deny due accord to those whose sacrifices fired society’s imagination and gave the movement a tremendous boost. But here also, my point is not that an unwarranted cult was built around personalities who became disproportionately powerful in the post-independence period.
The core issue is that in classic Soviet style, state patronage was used to force a non-Indic vision and perspective upon a perplexed nation. Marxist historiography’s goal was to undermine, and if possible eradicate, India’s foundational ethos and its moorings in the world’s most ancient, humane, and living civilization. This is a crime against the people; whoever thinks this an exaggeration may look at the debris of cultures wrecked by barbarians of various religious and political persuasions. Octavio Paz testifies to the annihilation of his native Mexican culture, its national character splintered by the marauding Spanish adventurers and the stifling parallel dictatorship of the Catholic Church; nothing meaningful could be salvaged.
In an era in which the Indic civilization is struggling to reassert its original dominance in the sub-continent, it is hardly surprising that the dispute has broken out in the present form, viz., over the depiction of Jain, Sikh and Jat communities in textbooks for school children. Leftists suggest that the objections were stage-managed (allegedly by the BJP), though the first protests by the Sikh community were mooted through the Congress party in the Delhi Legislative Assembly. This encouraged other groups to come forward even as the Congress, caught on the backfoot, effected a dizzying series of volte-faces after which it mercifully shut up.
What is germane however, is not how the controversy began, but whether there is substance in the anger against the impugned books. This means, are various communities unhappy because they have been presented in a true but unflattering light, or because they have been unjustly portrayed? Broadly, the textbooks render Sikh, Jat and Maratha leaders as plunderers, which Leftist scholars insist is factually correct. Certainly the Jats ransacked Akbar’s tomb at Sikandra and other enemy structures they could lay their hands on; similarly the Marathas levied taxes in their spheres of influence.
But these events seen in isolation cannot be used to insinuate the Marxist conclusion; history is a question of perspective and interpretation. With hindsight, we know that the armed uprisings of the Jats, Marathas and Sikhs against Aurangzeb’s rule resulted in the subsequent establishment of separate kingdoms by each of these communities. We can therefore postulate that each community was motivated by political and not rapacious considerations, as Marxists insist.
In the case of the Sikh Guru, moreover, what is pertinent is not the alleged conduct of his army on the way back from Assam, but the reasons for Teg Bahadur’s travels all over the country. The Guru repeatedly emphasized that the people needed reassurance, which is what he offered them. This comfort, it needs hardly be stressed, was against the horrors of religious persecution by the Mughal state. The last two Sikh Gurus were martyred in circumstances that are widely known; what is noteworthy about their conduct in this period is their study of the Hindu tradition, notably the Gods Rama and Krishna and the Goddess Chandi, to understand the legitimacy of violent means to counter evil forces. The outcome was the birth of the Khalsa.
Regarding Jainism, Leftists virtually castigate the community for claiming that it existed before Mahavira, and taunt that Buddhists should be prompted to make similar claims of antiquity. This is a matter of considerable sensitivity for Jains, but also has a bearing on the larger society as India has always engaged in free exchange of ideas and experiences across the religious-philosophical spectrum. Thus, though distinct groups have a core identity which distinguishes them from others, the notion of watertight compartments is alien to this country.
I have no desire to get embroiled in disputes over the dating of civilization, society, religion et al, but suffice it to say that long before Marxism emerged, the Jain community had explicit ideas about its origin and development. Mahavira was always recognized as the twenty-fourth Tirthankara (ford-maker), and not as the founder of the faith. All twenty-four Tirthankaras have well-developed biographies and genealogies, and from the time that temple and image making began in India, Jains have been building temples with the idols of twenty-four Tirthankaras.
The philosopher Zimmer believed that the twenty-third Tirthankara, Parsvanath, who lived a hundred-odd years before Mahavira, was also a historical figure. The twenty-second ford-maker, Aristanemi, said to have lived eighty-four thousand years before Parsvanath, certainly creates dating problems for modern academics. But Aristanemi’s father was the brother of Vasudev, father of Krishna, another mythological figure whose legendary city has made a magical reappearance from under the sea in our own mundane lifetime. Scholars have already noted an intimate connection between Rishabdev, the first Tirthankara, and Shiva.
Seen in this light, the Jain tapestry forms an inextricable part of the rich and exquisite continuity of India’s civilizational ethos from the earliest times. The suspicion naturally arises if the move to restrict Jainism to the lifetime of a single preceptor is not part of the old, discredited endeavour to divide and diminish Hindu society by projecting it as an aggregate of disparate castes and communities. If so, it is both a poor trick and shoddy scholarship.
End of matter
Irresistible ideology, dispensable education
Pioneer 26th March 2002
Irresistible ideology, dispensable education
By Sandhya Jain
The Supreme Court’s unfortunate decision to entertain a public interest litigation on the new school curriculum has cast a shadow over the academic year, even as millions of students prepare to report to school next month. The petition has been filed by activists who will enhance their personal profiles with the publicity generated by the case. Hence the apex court would have done well to question their locus standi on a matter of such academic sensitivity.
On the face of it, the Supreme Court has spared students by permitting the National Council for Educational Research and Training (NCERT) to go ahead with the publication of books in non-controversial subjects. Thus, Physics, Mathematics, Science and English, which are not in the eye of the storm, have been partially exempted from the stay on implementing the curriculum.
However, the stay on the overall curriculum continues and the new books proposed for Social Sciences and Hindi have been prohibited. It is not clear if the ban extends to private publishers who routinely bring out books based on the curriculum. As far as NCERT is concerned, the stay prohibits it from bringing out the combined Social Science book for classes six and nine. This means that four subjects – economics, geography, civics and history – cannot be taught to students of these classes. The stand-alone History book for class eleven is also encompassed by the ban.
Thus, in one stroke, Social Studies have been frozen at the upper primary, secondary, and higher secondary levels. The news reports do not clarify if the ban on Hindi covers all classes or merely one, in which illustrations accompanying the text on major festivals were labelled “Hinduization,” even though the book contained a whole chapter on Id! If communal parity is going to be calculated and enforced in such an unnatural manner, I fear we cannot but reap a harvest of aggravated disharmony.
The Supreme Court’s intervention gives rise to serious misgivings. In recent times several eminent lawyers have debated aspects of judicial functioning; hence it may be in order to make a few points. It would be fair to readers to mention here that apart from my known views on the functioning of academic oligarchies (Towards Freedom, Saraswati Vandana), I have a personal interest in the controversy. This is because the hullabaloo centres around the medieval India textbook for standard eleven, authored by my sister, Dr. Meenakshi Jain. I shall not defend her; should her work see the light of day, it will speak more eloquently than words can.
The critical issue is that the controversy is ideological rather than academic, and that not one of the litigants has a background in History, though they are trying to scuttle its new syllabi and books. What is more, for over six months, newspaper columns and television channels have been innundated with one-sided polemics against the new curriculum and books. Many of the articles and statements were by the authors whose books were being replaced; yet no attempt was made to balance the diatribes with a different viewpoint.
Some newspapers blacked out non-Left viewpoints completely, while some gave them minor space; some television channels were openly biased. Besides this, newspapers have permitted the complete misuse of their columns for regular denunciations of the Human Resources Development Minister, the ex-Education Secretary and the present NCERT director. In fact, even after the Supreme Court took up the case, a newspaper permitted a litigant to comment upon the proceedings, and quoted interested parties to malign the NCERT for lying to the Court! Surely there are some rules of conduct?
With such sustained bombardment on “saffronisation” of education, it is hard to believe that the learned judges were unfamiliar with the ideological considerations that motivated the petition. If memory serves me right, the petition was first rejected because it did not contain any substantive issue on which the Court could give a direction. It is a pity that with the academic session round the corner, the Court did not see fit to dismiss the appeal as a “nuisance petition”, but rather suggested that the petitioners amend and re-submit it. With the next hearing now slated for April 12, the case will eat into the academic year with deleterious consequences for students.
But even more painful than the bad timing and poor locus standi of the litigants is the fact that by de facto confining the ban to Social Science-History, the Court has joined a prickly ideological dispute. This is because without a shred of evidence that factually incorrect history has been written, the apex court has entertained the charge of “saffronisation” of education. Now “saffronisation” is a charge levelled by Marxist and Islamic activists whenever attempts are made to throw light on aspects that have been blacked out or distorted for ideological reasons. It is sad that the court has permitted a petition that does not make a single substantive point, and it is little wonder that many citizens today feel that justice has not been seen to be done.
These are strong words, and have been said with a heavy heart because of the fear that unrestrained judicial activism can bring the country to a sorry pass. In the case of the textbooks, for instance, it is legitimate to ask if there is a time-span in which the judges intend to decide the matter; else the case may play out over the entire academic year as is normal with due process of law.
Then, what are the academic parameters within which the decision will be taken? If the judges decide that knowledge in History is to be frozen and no critical review or rewriting can ever be done, shall we continue to teach impressionable minds about the Aryan Invasion long after archaeology has proved that it never took place? We will be the laughing stock of the international community if we continue with such inanities. More serious inaccuracies relate to the depiction of the Turkish invasions as causing the political unification of India! If this is the tainted History that the Court upholds, we are in danger of becoming a Marxist ideological theocracy.
It appears that the Court has unwittingly walked into a virtual minefield; it would be wise to exit without getting further embroiled. Parents of school going children have the right to know how the issue is going to be tackled. Will the learned judges go over the frozen textbooks themselves, line by line, and assess them on the basis of their own understanding of History? Or will they hear arguments from differing groups of historians and allow them to present their original sources and explain their interpretations in the manner in which lawyers present their briefs? How many original texts would be examined in this manner, and within what time-frame? Which historical sources will be declared acceptable, which unacceptable, and why?
Finally, does the Court believe that History must be a truthful record of the past (American textbooks have been revised to incorporate the erased history of Black slavery and genocide of Native Americans), or that it must be “secular” at the cost of the truth? The questions arising from this litigation amply demonstrate that the Courtroom is not the proper arena for academic grand-standing. It is sincerely hoped that the learned judges will spare themselves a walk in territory where angels fear to tread.
End of Matter
Irresistible ideology, dispensable education
By Sandhya Jain
The Supreme Court’s unfortunate decision to entertain a public interest litigation on the new school curriculum has cast a shadow over the academic year, even as millions of students prepare to report to school next month. The petition has been filed by activists who will enhance their personal profiles with the publicity generated by the case. Hence the apex court would have done well to question their locus standi on a matter of such academic sensitivity.
On the face of it, the Supreme Court has spared students by permitting the National Council for Educational Research and Training (NCERT) to go ahead with the publication of books in non-controversial subjects. Thus, Physics, Mathematics, Science and English, which are not in the eye of the storm, have been partially exempted from the stay on implementing the curriculum.
However, the stay on the overall curriculum continues and the new books proposed for Social Sciences and Hindi have been prohibited. It is not clear if the ban extends to private publishers who routinely bring out books based on the curriculum. As far as NCERT is concerned, the stay prohibits it from bringing out the combined Social Science book for classes six and nine. This means that four subjects – economics, geography, civics and history – cannot be taught to students of these classes. The stand-alone History book for class eleven is also encompassed by the ban.
Thus, in one stroke, Social Studies have been frozen at the upper primary, secondary, and higher secondary levels. The news reports do not clarify if the ban on Hindi covers all classes or merely one, in which illustrations accompanying the text on major festivals were labelled “Hinduization,” even though the book contained a whole chapter on Id! If communal parity is going to be calculated and enforced in such an unnatural manner, I fear we cannot but reap a harvest of aggravated disharmony.
The Supreme Court’s intervention gives rise to serious misgivings. In recent times several eminent lawyers have debated aspects of judicial functioning; hence it may be in order to make a few points. It would be fair to readers to mention here that apart from my known views on the functioning of academic oligarchies (Towards Freedom, Saraswati Vandana), I have a personal interest in the controversy. This is because the hullabaloo centres around the medieval India textbook for standard eleven, authored by my sister, Dr. Meenakshi Jain. I shall not defend her; should her work see the light of day, it will speak more eloquently than words can.
The critical issue is that the controversy is ideological rather than academic, and that not one of the litigants has a background in History, though they are trying to scuttle its new syllabi and books. What is more, for over six months, newspaper columns and television channels have been innundated with one-sided polemics against the new curriculum and books. Many of the articles and statements were by the authors whose books were being replaced; yet no attempt was made to balance the diatribes with a different viewpoint.
Some newspapers blacked out non-Left viewpoints completely, while some gave them minor space; some television channels were openly biased. Besides this, newspapers have permitted the complete misuse of their columns for regular denunciations of the Human Resources Development Minister, the ex-Education Secretary and the present NCERT director. In fact, even after the Supreme Court took up the case, a newspaper permitted a litigant to comment upon the proceedings, and quoted interested parties to malign the NCERT for lying to the Court! Surely there are some rules of conduct?
With such sustained bombardment on “saffronisation” of education, it is hard to believe that the learned judges were unfamiliar with the ideological considerations that motivated the petition. If memory serves me right, the petition was first rejected because it did not contain any substantive issue on which the Court could give a direction. It is a pity that with the academic session round the corner, the Court did not see fit to dismiss the appeal as a “nuisance petition”, but rather suggested that the petitioners amend and re-submit it. With the next hearing now slated for April 12, the case will eat into the academic year with deleterious consequences for students.
But even more painful than the bad timing and poor locus standi of the litigants is the fact that by de facto confining the ban to Social Science-History, the Court has joined a prickly ideological dispute. This is because without a shred of evidence that factually incorrect history has been written, the apex court has entertained the charge of “saffronisation” of education. Now “saffronisation” is a charge levelled by Marxist and Islamic activists whenever attempts are made to throw light on aspects that have been blacked out or distorted for ideological reasons. It is sad that the court has permitted a petition that does not make a single substantive point, and it is little wonder that many citizens today feel that justice has not been seen to be done.
These are strong words, and have been said with a heavy heart because of the fear that unrestrained judicial activism can bring the country to a sorry pass. In the case of the textbooks, for instance, it is legitimate to ask if there is a time-span in which the judges intend to decide the matter; else the case may play out over the entire academic year as is normal with due process of law.
Then, what are the academic parameters within which the decision will be taken? If the judges decide that knowledge in History is to be frozen and no critical review or rewriting can ever be done, shall we continue to teach impressionable minds about the Aryan Invasion long after archaeology has proved that it never took place? We will be the laughing stock of the international community if we continue with such inanities. More serious inaccuracies relate to the depiction of the Turkish invasions as causing the political unification of India! If this is the tainted History that the Court upholds, we are in danger of becoming a Marxist ideological theocracy.
It appears that the Court has unwittingly walked into a virtual minefield; it would be wise to exit without getting further embroiled. Parents of school going children have the right to know how the issue is going to be tackled. Will the learned judges go over the frozen textbooks themselves, line by line, and assess them on the basis of their own understanding of History? Or will they hear arguments from differing groups of historians and allow them to present their original sources and explain their interpretations in the manner in which lawyers present their briefs? How many original texts would be examined in this manner, and within what time-frame? Which historical sources will be declared acceptable, which unacceptable, and why?
Finally, does the Court believe that History must be a truthful record of the past (American textbooks have been revised to incorporate the erased history of Black slavery and genocide of Native Americans), or that it must be “secular” at the cost of the truth? The questions arising from this litigation amply demonstrate that the Courtroom is not the proper arena for academic grand-standing. It is sincerely hoped that the learned judges will spare themselves a walk in territory where angels fear to tread.
End of Matter
Perceived fairplay will cool Hindu rage
Pioneer 23rd April 2002
Perceived fairplay will cool Hindu rage
By Sandhya Jain
The wise have long recognized that justice must not only be done, but should also be perceived to be done. Unfortunately, this has not been the case in this country, especially regarding the legitimate interests and sensitivities of the majority community. In fact, majority baiting has assumed such alarming proportions that there is growing concern among analysts that the proverbial Hindu patience may be reaching breaking point. Serious commentators are of the view that political parties and the media should understand the Godhra-Gujarat conflagration from this point of view, and resist the cheap temptation to fish in troubled waters.
It would also help cool temperatures nationwide if the courts are able to convey that they are not being unduly influenced by media-induced hysteria, and are dispensing justice with detachment. I say this with a sense of urgency, because for more than two decades the judiciary has been an institution people have trusted when various organs of government have failed them. Of late, however, there is growing despair among Hindus that the courts are immune to their fears and concerns, and that they have nowhere to go for succour and redressal.
Earlier this month, the apex court passed an order that has caused much disquiet even among normally easy-going citizens. According to press reports, a Varanasi resident had filed a petition seeking to restrain namaz at public places (i.e. roads, pavements) as this caused inconvenience to other persons (Hindustan Times, 8 April 2002). A three-judge bench rejected the petition as “mischievous,” and fined the petitioner ten thousand rupees on the ground that ‘persons like him were causing bloodshed in the country.’ The petitioner’s counsel was warned that if he tried to argue the matter further, the fine would be doubled.
Regardless of the merits of the petition, it seems bizarre that the court should fine a petitioner after it has decided to reject his petition, or to make him withdraw it. If the petition is not legal, the petitioner should be accused of an infringement of law and normal legal proceedings instituted against him. This is the procedure even with regard to contempt of court, where an accused is allowed the privilege of defending himself. Prima facie, this is an odd case and merits the attention of those concerned with judicial reforms, else there may be erosion of public respect for the judiciary.
Even if the namaz petition is considered a purely civic matter, the Supreme Court’s decision last Monday to entertain a public interest litigation seeking appointment of a special investigating team to inquire into the Gujarat riots with a view to fix responsibility of the state government and police officials, cannot but have a political tinge. When PIL was introduced about two decades ago, it was to provide a last remedy to desperate and resourceless individuals. Unfortunately, this has degenerated into a “busy-body” provision and is increasingly being misused to build personal profiles or make ideological statements.
I fear a serious miscarriage of justice someday if courts do not insist on a petitioner’s locus standi, especially in sensitive cases. In the present instance, the apex court has sent notices to the Centre and the Gujarat government on a petition seeking quashing of the state government's notification appointing a retired High Court judge to inquire into the recent riots. The petitioners want the enquiry to be conducted by the National Human Rights Commission.
Ironically, the one area truly deserving of court attention is the press coverage of court proceedings, as it is sometimes felt that this does not reflect the full substance of what occurred in the courtroom. For instance, when the Supreme Court met on April 12 and refused to vacate the stay on implementation of NCERT’s new school curriculum, the news reports almost uniformly projected the event as a setback to the government’s attempt to "saffronise" education.
It was widely reported that NCERT had deleted portions of existing textbooks without permission from the concerned authors wherever these offended the so-called religious sentiments of some groups. The manner of reporting gave the impression that what was objected to was historically correct, even if it was offensive to some groups, and that History was being rewritten to conform to a particular ideological convenience.
Now, regardless of the merits of the NCERT position vis-à-vis the old and new textbooks, there are a few points that deserve to be known by the general public. One is that the authors of the old textbooks would not be able to defend their statements about groups like the Sikhs, Jats, Jains and others in an open forum where they are asked to present their sources and explain their interpretations. In the case of the Jain community, for instance, it has been said that it split into the Swetambara and Digambara sects because Parsvanath asked his followers to cover their bodies, whereas Mahavira asked them to shed their clothes. The manner of writing implies that the injunction to shed clothes applied to the entire lay community. Actually, this was applicable only to the ascetic order. Also, the sectarian divide in Jainism was a much later development.
It is hardly surprising, therefore, that the Supreme Court has received several petitions demanding that these impugned textbooks are not reinstated by court order or by default. I understand that even the National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, a statutory body, has complained against the old textbooks, which reflects the intensity of feelings they have evoked in various sections. The Sikhs and Jains have also filed petitions. Yet none of these find mention in the news reports, though the Court will be hearing them from July.
It seems to me that while the majority community feels justly aggrieved at the hostility of the media and political parties, the Left-secular camp does not have much ammunition left in its arsenal. As such, the sterile and corrosive campaigns against “Hindu” issues may be difficult to sustain in the long run. Indeed, it is time to ask the Left to explain its reluctance to accept the overwhelming archaeological evidence that there was no Aryan invasion of India, and that there are amazing similarities between the Harappan civilization and the land described in the Rig Veda.
Similarly, they should be asked why they are resisting an honest appraisal of the medieval period of Indian history when Islam was politically ascendant and faced fierce resistance from native groups. In America, the white majority has conceded the need to face past atrocities against Native Americans and Blacks. The secularists must recognize that the evasion of historical truths only leads to the festering of old wounds, because it encourages Indian Muslims to identify themselves with the foreign invaders and their atrocities on native Indians, which inhibits communal reconciliation.
I find it somewhat amusing that while the Left-secular camp does not accept that the Vedas are a product of native genius, they nonetheless exhort Hindus to abide by the value system of the “invader-Aryans” and practice the tolerance built into the Vedic ethos! They would benefit vastly from an honest study of Hindu tradition. A reading of the Mahabharat, for instance, would help them realize that while Hindus are bound by dharma to preserve peace at all costs, they are equally bound by dharma to resist injustice to the bitter end. Surely Marxists should understand dialectics!
End of matter
Perceived fairplay will cool Hindu rage
By Sandhya Jain
The wise have long recognized that justice must not only be done, but should also be perceived to be done. Unfortunately, this has not been the case in this country, especially regarding the legitimate interests and sensitivities of the majority community. In fact, majority baiting has assumed such alarming proportions that there is growing concern among analysts that the proverbial Hindu patience may be reaching breaking point. Serious commentators are of the view that political parties and the media should understand the Godhra-Gujarat conflagration from this point of view, and resist the cheap temptation to fish in troubled waters.
It would also help cool temperatures nationwide if the courts are able to convey that they are not being unduly influenced by media-induced hysteria, and are dispensing justice with detachment. I say this with a sense of urgency, because for more than two decades the judiciary has been an institution people have trusted when various organs of government have failed them. Of late, however, there is growing despair among Hindus that the courts are immune to their fears and concerns, and that they have nowhere to go for succour and redressal.
Earlier this month, the apex court passed an order that has caused much disquiet even among normally easy-going citizens. According to press reports, a Varanasi resident had filed a petition seeking to restrain namaz at public places (i.e. roads, pavements) as this caused inconvenience to other persons (Hindustan Times, 8 April 2002). A three-judge bench rejected the petition as “mischievous,” and fined the petitioner ten thousand rupees on the ground that ‘persons like him were causing bloodshed in the country.’ The petitioner’s counsel was warned that if he tried to argue the matter further, the fine would be doubled.
Regardless of the merits of the petition, it seems bizarre that the court should fine a petitioner after it has decided to reject his petition, or to make him withdraw it. If the petition is not legal, the petitioner should be accused of an infringement of law and normal legal proceedings instituted against him. This is the procedure even with regard to contempt of court, where an accused is allowed the privilege of defending himself. Prima facie, this is an odd case and merits the attention of those concerned with judicial reforms, else there may be erosion of public respect for the judiciary.
Even if the namaz petition is considered a purely civic matter, the Supreme Court’s decision last Monday to entertain a public interest litigation seeking appointment of a special investigating team to inquire into the Gujarat riots with a view to fix responsibility of the state government and police officials, cannot but have a political tinge. When PIL was introduced about two decades ago, it was to provide a last remedy to desperate and resourceless individuals. Unfortunately, this has degenerated into a “busy-body” provision and is increasingly being misused to build personal profiles or make ideological statements.
I fear a serious miscarriage of justice someday if courts do not insist on a petitioner’s locus standi, especially in sensitive cases. In the present instance, the apex court has sent notices to the Centre and the Gujarat government on a petition seeking quashing of the state government's notification appointing a retired High Court judge to inquire into the recent riots. The petitioners want the enquiry to be conducted by the National Human Rights Commission.
Ironically, the one area truly deserving of court attention is the press coverage of court proceedings, as it is sometimes felt that this does not reflect the full substance of what occurred in the courtroom. For instance, when the Supreme Court met on April 12 and refused to vacate the stay on implementation of NCERT’s new school curriculum, the news reports almost uniformly projected the event as a setback to the government’s attempt to "saffronise" education.
It was widely reported that NCERT had deleted portions of existing textbooks without permission from the concerned authors wherever these offended the so-called religious sentiments of some groups. The manner of reporting gave the impression that what was objected to was historically correct, even if it was offensive to some groups, and that History was being rewritten to conform to a particular ideological convenience.
Now, regardless of the merits of the NCERT position vis-à-vis the old and new textbooks, there are a few points that deserve to be known by the general public. One is that the authors of the old textbooks would not be able to defend their statements about groups like the Sikhs, Jats, Jains and others in an open forum where they are asked to present their sources and explain their interpretations. In the case of the Jain community, for instance, it has been said that it split into the Swetambara and Digambara sects because Parsvanath asked his followers to cover their bodies, whereas Mahavira asked them to shed their clothes. The manner of writing implies that the injunction to shed clothes applied to the entire lay community. Actually, this was applicable only to the ascetic order. Also, the sectarian divide in Jainism was a much later development.
It is hardly surprising, therefore, that the Supreme Court has received several petitions demanding that these impugned textbooks are not reinstated by court order or by default. I understand that even the National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, a statutory body, has complained against the old textbooks, which reflects the intensity of feelings they have evoked in various sections. The Sikhs and Jains have also filed petitions. Yet none of these find mention in the news reports, though the Court will be hearing them from July.
It seems to me that while the majority community feels justly aggrieved at the hostility of the media and political parties, the Left-secular camp does not have much ammunition left in its arsenal. As such, the sterile and corrosive campaigns against “Hindu” issues may be difficult to sustain in the long run. Indeed, it is time to ask the Left to explain its reluctance to accept the overwhelming archaeological evidence that there was no Aryan invasion of India, and that there are amazing similarities between the Harappan civilization and the land described in the Rig Veda.
Similarly, they should be asked why they are resisting an honest appraisal of the medieval period of Indian history when Islam was politically ascendant and faced fierce resistance from native groups. In America, the white majority has conceded the need to face past atrocities against Native Americans and Blacks. The secularists must recognize that the evasion of historical truths only leads to the festering of old wounds, because it encourages Indian Muslims to identify themselves with the foreign invaders and their atrocities on native Indians, which inhibits communal reconciliation.
I find it somewhat amusing that while the Left-secular camp does not accept that the Vedas are a product of native genius, they nonetheless exhort Hindus to abide by the value system of the “invader-Aryans” and practice the tolerance built into the Vedic ethos! They would benefit vastly from an honest study of Hindu tradition. A reading of the Mahabharat, for instance, would help them realize that while Hindus are bound by dharma to preserve peace at all costs, they are equally bound by dharma to resist injustice to the bitter end. Surely Marxists should understand dialectics!
End of matter
History meets Dharma in politics
Pioneer 18th December 2002
History meets Dharma in politics
By Sandhya Jain
An inscrutable destiny, Mahakaal, has presented modern India with a strange paradox. Punjab, land of the Vedas, and Uttar Pradesh, quintessential Aryavarta where Vedic civilization reached its pinnacle, are caught in a peculiar face-off between History and Dharma, even as both states prepare for assembly elections in the forthcoming year. The issue of the revision and replacement of NCERT textbooks has been so sharply politicized by Leftist academics and Left-leaning politicians that it is virtually impossible to join the debate on purely scholarly grounds.
Prima facie, the controversy is over the historical projection of the Jats and Sikhs, and the dietary practices of ancient Hindus. Attempts to redress the bruised sentiments of various communities have resulted in a volley of abuse (saffronization, talibanisation, myth-as-history, et al). While the veracity of historical presentation should not be sacrificed to political convenience, it is worth investigating if the critics have a credible case. Several writers have refuted the projection of Jat kings and Sikh Gurus as plunderers on the basis of historical records, but the dietary habits of ancient Hindus are still to be examined.
Food preferences ascribed to primitive ancestors should normally not invite much notice; what is objectionable is the attempt to present the veneration of the cow as a late development in Hindu society which bigots are insisting upon to maintain an anti-Muslim identity. Former Union minister P. Chidambaram has said as much: “look at the portions expunged from history textbooks… Beef is believed to be the favourite meat of Muslims and is believed to be abhorred by Hindus. The subliminal connection is made, and out goes the reference to beef. No one cares to answer the question whether in modern India many Hindus, especially the very poor, consume beef (usually meat of the buffalo)” (India Today, 17 December 2001).
I leave it to Chidambaram to explain how very poor Hindus can afford buffalo meat – as if it is cheaper than vegetables – and if buffalo-meat is the same as cow-meat. To return to the leftist claim, however, its sum and substance is that vague references in scriptures are supported by archaeological evidence, and hence amount to historical fact. The truth is that the Vedic era is shrouded in mystery. The mantras are not the product of a single revelation to a solitary rishi, but span a period of at least a thousand years. And their historical dating remains problematical, to say the least.
Ironically, Leftists cannot honestly state that archaeological findings corroborate their claims about Vedic society. Leftists maintain that the Indus Valley civilization was pre-Aryan, and was destroyed by Vedic-Aryan invaders. But archaeological excavations do not confirm either the ‘Aryan Invasion’ or the separate existence of Vedic-Aryans. What they do reveal is a continuity of theme and motif, which has prompted Pakistani archaeologists to re-name ‘pre-Harappan’ sites as ‘early Harappan’.
Presently, the period from 1400-1000 BC is accepted as early Vedic, and 1000-600 BC as later Vedic. But the astronomical dating of hymns gives us 7000 BC and 3700 BC as probable dates for some hymns. Understandably, there is no consensus on the subject. Some modern archaeologists feel Harappa may well represent Vedic culture as, according to Carbon-14 dating, it falls between 3000-1500 BC. Later mature Harappa is put at 2000-1700 BC, when the Sarasvati dried up.
There is another difficulty with archaeology, which concerns the excavation of cattle bones. “Cattle” is a collective noun, which includes cow, bull, buffalo, nilgai and all bovine animals. Contrary to the Marxist contention, cattle bone does not automatically mean cow bone, as nowhere in the world have experts been able to differentiate the bones so clearly. This is because the bones found are mainly large pieces of limbs. The cattle could have died naturally or been killed by wild animals, and later skinned for their hide and bones (to make bone tools). Then, the term ‘gau’ (cow) is itself a collective noun used to denote cattle. It also has other diverse meanings and, depending upon the context, could mean cow, waters, sunrays, learned persons, Vedic verses, Prithvi, or innocent.
Some general assumptions about Vedic society are, however, possible. It was principally agrarian, with grains forming the staple diet. It was heterogeneous and pluralistic, and admittedly non-vegetarian at the time when the cow was being singled out as an object of veneration. Even in this early age, debates were already raging in support of and in opposition to meat-eating, and for and against animal sacrifice; there were rishis who were clothed and those without dress; and munis who ‘ate air’ (went without food). It is obvious that Vedic society was actively engaged in evolving its dharma (way of life), and the development of these strands of thought can be clearly discerned in later developments in society.
That the trend was in favour of vegetarianism can be seen from the Rig Veda Samhita itself. In as many as twenty-seven places, the cow is referred to as aghnya, (repeat aghnya) not to be hurt or killed, and also called Aditi, Divine Mother. The Rig and Sama Veda extensively extol the virtues of the cow, cow’s milk and ghee. The Rig Veda (10-87-16) prescribes severe punishment for one who kills the cow, even expulsion from the kingdom (8-101-15); the Atharva Veda recommends beheading (8-3-16), while the Yajur Veda (30-18) says the killer of the cow deserves to be hanged.
The end of the Upanishadic period (Vedanta) coincides with the emergence of Buddhism and Jainism, both of which intensify the move towards vegetarianism as a higher form of culture. Gautam Buddha discouraged monks from initiating the slaughter of animals, but permitted them to accept cooked flesh as alms. Mahavira took the doctrine of ahimsa (non-violence) to unprecedented heights, which set vegetarianism and asceticism as the desirable social and moral codes for all dharmic people. The subsequent asceticism of Brahmins and the Vaishnava code of conduct are enormously indebted to Jainism.
Historically, it is undeniable that the Hindu tradition has favoured vegetarianism as a way of life for at least two-and-a-half-thousand years, during which cow-meat has been taboo. The Ashokan edicts help trace some of this development, with Ashoka delineating the reduction in the killing of animals in the royal kitchen; the non-killing of certain animals on certain days; and so on. Foreign travellers like Hueng Tsang and Fa Hien have testified that beef-eating was taboo in ancient India. This is also codified in the Charak Samhita, dated around the first century BC, and the Parashar Smriti, dated around the first century AD.
We may also note that traditionally every community was governed by desh-jati-kul dharma (rules of region, caste, family), under which members were mostly prohibited from slaughtering and consuming the animals raised by them, such as cattle, goats, sheep; a practice which continues to this day. To conclude, reverence for the cow has been etched so deeply in Hindu consciousness that the use of beef tallow to grease bullet cartridges drove Mangal Pandey to trigger off the 1857 revolt against the British. This is a proud chapter in Indian history, even though it failed, and the political compulsions of present-day Marxists and secularists cannot de-legitimize it.
I am amazed that instead of narrating the perpetual universalization of socio-cultural practices valued for enhancing public morality and consciousness, Leftist historians are attempting to denigrate the whole society with cheap jibes about cow-meat in an historically undefined past.
End of matter
History meets Dharma in politics
By Sandhya Jain
An inscrutable destiny, Mahakaal, has presented modern India with a strange paradox. Punjab, land of the Vedas, and Uttar Pradesh, quintessential Aryavarta where Vedic civilization reached its pinnacle, are caught in a peculiar face-off between History and Dharma, even as both states prepare for assembly elections in the forthcoming year. The issue of the revision and replacement of NCERT textbooks has been so sharply politicized by Leftist academics and Left-leaning politicians that it is virtually impossible to join the debate on purely scholarly grounds.
Prima facie, the controversy is over the historical projection of the Jats and Sikhs, and the dietary practices of ancient Hindus. Attempts to redress the bruised sentiments of various communities have resulted in a volley of abuse (saffronization, talibanisation, myth-as-history, et al). While the veracity of historical presentation should not be sacrificed to political convenience, it is worth investigating if the critics have a credible case. Several writers have refuted the projection of Jat kings and Sikh Gurus as plunderers on the basis of historical records, but the dietary habits of ancient Hindus are still to be examined.
Food preferences ascribed to primitive ancestors should normally not invite much notice; what is objectionable is the attempt to present the veneration of the cow as a late development in Hindu society which bigots are insisting upon to maintain an anti-Muslim identity. Former Union minister P. Chidambaram has said as much: “look at the portions expunged from history textbooks… Beef is believed to be the favourite meat of Muslims and is believed to be abhorred by Hindus. The subliminal connection is made, and out goes the reference to beef. No one cares to answer the question whether in modern India many Hindus, especially the very poor, consume beef (usually meat of the buffalo)” (India Today, 17 December 2001).
I leave it to Chidambaram to explain how very poor Hindus can afford buffalo meat – as if it is cheaper than vegetables – and if buffalo-meat is the same as cow-meat. To return to the leftist claim, however, its sum and substance is that vague references in scriptures are supported by archaeological evidence, and hence amount to historical fact. The truth is that the Vedic era is shrouded in mystery. The mantras are not the product of a single revelation to a solitary rishi, but span a period of at least a thousand years. And their historical dating remains problematical, to say the least.
Ironically, Leftists cannot honestly state that archaeological findings corroborate their claims about Vedic society. Leftists maintain that the Indus Valley civilization was pre-Aryan, and was destroyed by Vedic-Aryan invaders. But archaeological excavations do not confirm either the ‘Aryan Invasion’ or the separate existence of Vedic-Aryans. What they do reveal is a continuity of theme and motif, which has prompted Pakistani archaeologists to re-name ‘pre-Harappan’ sites as ‘early Harappan’.
Presently, the period from 1400-1000 BC is accepted as early Vedic, and 1000-600 BC as later Vedic. But the astronomical dating of hymns gives us 7000 BC and 3700 BC as probable dates for some hymns. Understandably, there is no consensus on the subject. Some modern archaeologists feel Harappa may well represent Vedic culture as, according to Carbon-14 dating, it falls between 3000-1500 BC. Later mature Harappa is put at 2000-1700 BC, when the Sarasvati dried up.
There is another difficulty with archaeology, which concerns the excavation of cattle bones. “Cattle” is a collective noun, which includes cow, bull, buffalo, nilgai and all bovine animals. Contrary to the Marxist contention, cattle bone does not automatically mean cow bone, as nowhere in the world have experts been able to differentiate the bones so clearly. This is because the bones found are mainly large pieces of limbs. The cattle could have died naturally or been killed by wild animals, and later skinned for their hide and bones (to make bone tools). Then, the term ‘gau’ (cow) is itself a collective noun used to denote cattle. It also has other diverse meanings and, depending upon the context, could mean cow, waters, sunrays, learned persons, Vedic verses, Prithvi, or innocent.
Some general assumptions about Vedic society are, however, possible. It was principally agrarian, with grains forming the staple diet. It was heterogeneous and pluralistic, and admittedly non-vegetarian at the time when the cow was being singled out as an object of veneration. Even in this early age, debates were already raging in support of and in opposition to meat-eating, and for and against animal sacrifice; there were rishis who were clothed and those without dress; and munis who ‘ate air’ (went without food). It is obvious that Vedic society was actively engaged in evolving its dharma (way of life), and the development of these strands of thought can be clearly discerned in later developments in society.
That the trend was in favour of vegetarianism can be seen from the Rig Veda Samhita itself. In as many as twenty-seven places, the cow is referred to as aghnya, (repeat aghnya) not to be hurt or killed, and also called Aditi, Divine Mother. The Rig and Sama Veda extensively extol the virtues of the cow, cow’s milk and ghee. The Rig Veda (10-87-16) prescribes severe punishment for one who kills the cow, even expulsion from the kingdom (8-101-15); the Atharva Veda recommends beheading (8-3-16), while the Yajur Veda (30-18) says the killer of the cow deserves to be hanged.
The end of the Upanishadic period (Vedanta) coincides with the emergence of Buddhism and Jainism, both of which intensify the move towards vegetarianism as a higher form of culture. Gautam Buddha discouraged monks from initiating the slaughter of animals, but permitted them to accept cooked flesh as alms. Mahavira took the doctrine of ahimsa (non-violence) to unprecedented heights, which set vegetarianism and asceticism as the desirable social and moral codes for all dharmic people. The subsequent asceticism of Brahmins and the Vaishnava code of conduct are enormously indebted to Jainism.
Historically, it is undeniable that the Hindu tradition has favoured vegetarianism as a way of life for at least two-and-a-half-thousand years, during which cow-meat has been taboo. The Ashokan edicts help trace some of this development, with Ashoka delineating the reduction in the killing of animals in the royal kitchen; the non-killing of certain animals on certain days; and so on. Foreign travellers like Hueng Tsang and Fa Hien have testified that beef-eating was taboo in ancient India. This is also codified in the Charak Samhita, dated around the first century BC, and the Parashar Smriti, dated around the first century AD.
We may also note that traditionally every community was governed by desh-jati-kul dharma (rules of region, caste, family), under which members were mostly prohibited from slaughtering and consuming the animals raised by them, such as cattle, goats, sheep; a practice which continues to this day. To conclude, reverence for the cow has been etched so deeply in Hindu consciousness that the use of beef tallow to grease bullet cartridges drove Mangal Pandey to trigger off the 1857 revolt against the British. This is a proud chapter in Indian history, even though it failed, and the political compulsions of present-day Marxists and secularists cannot de-legitimize it.
I am amazed that instead of narrating the perpetual universalization of socio-cultural practices valued for enhancing public morality and consciousness, Leftist historians are attempting to denigrate the whole society with cheap jibes about cow-meat in an historically undefined past.
End of matter
A ‘right’ turn in History
Pioneer 13th January 2004
A ‘right’ turn in History
By Sandhya Jain
A wag once complained that whereas history repeats itself, historians repeat each other! We may thus be destined to see adherents of the sidelined Marxist school of historiography reproduce the old discredited dogmas in ‘parallel’ textbooks aimed at competing with NCERT’s new course books. A fresh round of bloodletting amongst Left and non-Left historians seems inevitable following the decision of the December 2003 session of the Indian History Congress to officially counter NCERT’s ‘distorted’ history books.
In one sense, the decision is welcome; it ends the shadow boxing over ‘communalism’ and brings the ideological and political perspectives of NCERT critics into the open. Discerning citizens, teachers and students alike will now have the opportunity to assess the manner in which historians of rival perspectives select, delete, or interpret ‘facts’ regarding various historical dynasties and eras, and the overarching framework through which they view the events of successive millennia.
Being addicted to old ideological obediences, Marxist scholars must be aghast to find the banished ghost of India’s native civilizational ethos enter the groves of academia and challenge the entrenched orthodoxies of socialism, secularism and composite culture, erected under the heady hegemony of the Nehruvian age. Engagement is inevitable as Indian scholarship emerges from the shadows of political, ideological and psychological submission to Islamic and Western-Christian-Marxist intellectual domination.
The present conflict over the ‘right’ to write history from the perspective of the nation’s core community has raised the hackles of Leftist academics. The principal charges against Marxists include a mean-spirited denial of the glories of pre-Islamic India; a dishonest obliteration of the bloody chapters of India’s encounter with Islam and the continuing element of iconoclastic fury in that faith, as witnessed in the destruction of Hindu temples in neighbouring countries and the demolition of the Bamiyan Buddhas; and an inadequate appreciation of the anti-Hindu bias of so-called ‘secular’ western ideologies. The list is by no means exhaustive.
At the same time, this indictment does not negate the fact that Marxist methodology has made a lasting contribution in exposing the utterly exploitative nature of Sultanate and Mughal rule, which ruined the populace by appropriating the bulk of agrarian produce. It also behoves me to acknowledge that the eminent historians of this school have maintained decorum while responding to the most potent challenge to their worldview, in the form of NCERT’s Medieval India for Class Eleven.
Nation-building, however, is a pitiless affair; those engaged in the struggle to recover the soul of India and restore her foundational ethos in national life cannot shy from articulating unpleasant truths. This involves exposing the Marxist schools’ strenuous attempts to deny or downplay the sustained native resistance to Islam from its very advent in the sub-continent. Marxists have unjustly obfuscated Islam’s intolerance of temples and image-worship, and its sustained assault on both. Far more unforgivable is the fact that they have tried to equate the iconoclasm of Muslim rulers with isolated instances of intra-Hindu conflict, and to pretend that concessions made by Muslim rulers to Hindu temples or holy men during times of their own political need are synonymous with the eternal catholicity of the sannatan dharma.
The current Marxist offensive is triggered by their loss of control over State-sponsored institutions through which they imposed their one-dimensional version of history. Some glimpses of Prof. Satish Chandra’s Medieval India (old NCERT textbook) will suffice to show the general reader the objections of non-Marxists to Marxist history. At stake is the future of History as a discipline, for if History cannot be an honest record of the past, it loses its very raison d’etre.
As part of the attempt to downplay India’s glorious past, several major kingdoms rising between the death of Harsha (647 AD) and the founding of the Delhi Sultanate (1206 AD) have been erased from the narrative. These five hundred-odd years saw an unparalleled efflorescence with the building of gigantic temples, and the writing of great literary and philosophical works, which left an indelible imprint on subsequent Indian culture. It seems inexcusable that the youth who are the nation’s future should be denied knowledge, and legitimate pride, in such a defining period of national history.
Dynasties thus withheld from student memory include the illustrious Gahadavalas, who played a sterling role against the Turkish invasions. Their dynasty is credited with the construction of the Rama temple found below the Babri structure at Ayodhya, and they probably owe their historical eclipse to their association with that infamous city.
Others who got short shrift include the Chandellas of Bundelkhand, who fought Mahmud of Ghazni and built the grand Khajuraho temples; the Paramaras of Malwa who fought the Turks and set up a Sanskrit college in the Bhojashala at Dhar; the celebrated Chauhan kings who vanquished the Turks; the Kalachuris of Tripuri; the Karkotas of Kashmir; famous Gujarat rulers and eminent Sena kings of Bengal; and renowned Orissa dynasties like the Shailodbhava, Kara, Kesari, Eastern Ganga and Later Eastern Ganga; to list only some of the most obvious.
The intense social dynamism of Indian society in the centuries before Islam, with tribal groups transiting from forest and pastoral settings to settled agriculture and contributing to state formation, the integration of tribal-local gods in regional and pan-India traditions, the economic integration of the country through itinerant merchants, are all totally ignored. The multiple roles of Hindu peasants as farmers and warriors is deliberately negated, in order to portray Hindu society as rigidly opposed to mobility.
There is deliberate suppression of the flourishing economy and growth of urban centres in the Pratihara, Paramara, Chahamana and other kingdoms, in order to sustain Prof. R.S. Sharma’s false hypothesis that Indian trade and economy fell into doldrums for three centuries after Harsha’s death. This falsification is linked to another blatant lie – that economic revival came with the advent of Islam.
Regarding Muslim rule, the old NCERT book ignores the Arab invasion of Sind and the four centuries of stiff resistance by the Hindu rulers of Sind, Kabul and Zabul. The blood-curdling numbers in which Hindus fell prey to Islamic invaders – fifty thousand defenders died in just one attack by Mahmud of Ghazni on Somnath – is never acknowledged. Akbar’s massacre of thirty thousand peasants seeking refuge in the Chittor Fort is, of course, unmentionable. The awesome numbers in which peasants and warriors were sold as part of a burgeoning slave trade throughout Muslim rule in India (continuing even as the East India Company was establishing itself) has simply failed to register on Marxist consciousness. The unilateral aggression of Mughal emperors from Jahangir to Aurangzeb against the Sikh Gurus is also downplayed.
This is by no means a wholistic critique. Yet discerning readers would have realized that Marxists’ ideological compulsions to whitewash the horrors of India’s Islamic encounter has led to unacceptable falsification of the pre-Islamic golden era as an age of feudal darkness. Marxist purging of the bloody conflicts of several centuries, which some Indians now dare designate as ‘the Hindu Holocaust,’ has also led them to misrepresent modern history by papering over Muslim separatism and insisting that the medieval age created a ‘composite culture’ that survived the Partition of the country on religious lines. It will be interesting to see the extent to which the new Marxist history books meet the expectations of the conscious citizen.
End of matter
A ‘right’ turn in History
By Sandhya Jain
A wag once complained that whereas history repeats itself, historians repeat each other! We may thus be destined to see adherents of the sidelined Marxist school of historiography reproduce the old discredited dogmas in ‘parallel’ textbooks aimed at competing with NCERT’s new course books. A fresh round of bloodletting amongst Left and non-Left historians seems inevitable following the decision of the December 2003 session of the Indian History Congress to officially counter NCERT’s ‘distorted’ history books.
In one sense, the decision is welcome; it ends the shadow boxing over ‘communalism’ and brings the ideological and political perspectives of NCERT critics into the open. Discerning citizens, teachers and students alike will now have the opportunity to assess the manner in which historians of rival perspectives select, delete, or interpret ‘facts’ regarding various historical dynasties and eras, and the overarching framework through which they view the events of successive millennia.
Being addicted to old ideological obediences, Marxist scholars must be aghast to find the banished ghost of India’s native civilizational ethos enter the groves of academia and challenge the entrenched orthodoxies of socialism, secularism and composite culture, erected under the heady hegemony of the Nehruvian age. Engagement is inevitable as Indian scholarship emerges from the shadows of political, ideological and psychological submission to Islamic and Western-Christian-Marxist intellectual domination.
The present conflict over the ‘right’ to write history from the perspective of the nation’s core community has raised the hackles of Leftist academics. The principal charges against Marxists include a mean-spirited denial of the glories of pre-Islamic India; a dishonest obliteration of the bloody chapters of India’s encounter with Islam and the continuing element of iconoclastic fury in that faith, as witnessed in the destruction of Hindu temples in neighbouring countries and the demolition of the Bamiyan Buddhas; and an inadequate appreciation of the anti-Hindu bias of so-called ‘secular’ western ideologies. The list is by no means exhaustive.
At the same time, this indictment does not negate the fact that Marxist methodology has made a lasting contribution in exposing the utterly exploitative nature of Sultanate and Mughal rule, which ruined the populace by appropriating the bulk of agrarian produce. It also behoves me to acknowledge that the eminent historians of this school have maintained decorum while responding to the most potent challenge to their worldview, in the form of NCERT’s Medieval India for Class Eleven.
Nation-building, however, is a pitiless affair; those engaged in the struggle to recover the soul of India and restore her foundational ethos in national life cannot shy from articulating unpleasant truths. This involves exposing the Marxist schools’ strenuous attempts to deny or downplay the sustained native resistance to Islam from its very advent in the sub-continent. Marxists have unjustly obfuscated Islam’s intolerance of temples and image-worship, and its sustained assault on both. Far more unforgivable is the fact that they have tried to equate the iconoclasm of Muslim rulers with isolated instances of intra-Hindu conflict, and to pretend that concessions made by Muslim rulers to Hindu temples or holy men during times of their own political need are synonymous with the eternal catholicity of the sannatan dharma.
The current Marxist offensive is triggered by their loss of control over State-sponsored institutions through which they imposed their one-dimensional version of history. Some glimpses of Prof. Satish Chandra’s Medieval India (old NCERT textbook) will suffice to show the general reader the objections of non-Marxists to Marxist history. At stake is the future of History as a discipline, for if History cannot be an honest record of the past, it loses its very raison d’etre.
As part of the attempt to downplay India’s glorious past, several major kingdoms rising between the death of Harsha (647 AD) and the founding of the Delhi Sultanate (1206 AD) have been erased from the narrative. These five hundred-odd years saw an unparalleled efflorescence with the building of gigantic temples, and the writing of great literary and philosophical works, which left an indelible imprint on subsequent Indian culture. It seems inexcusable that the youth who are the nation’s future should be denied knowledge, and legitimate pride, in such a defining period of national history.
Dynasties thus withheld from student memory include the illustrious Gahadavalas, who played a sterling role against the Turkish invasions. Their dynasty is credited with the construction of the Rama temple found below the Babri structure at Ayodhya, and they probably owe their historical eclipse to their association with that infamous city.
Others who got short shrift include the Chandellas of Bundelkhand, who fought Mahmud of Ghazni and built the grand Khajuraho temples; the Paramaras of Malwa who fought the Turks and set up a Sanskrit college in the Bhojashala at Dhar; the celebrated Chauhan kings who vanquished the Turks; the Kalachuris of Tripuri; the Karkotas of Kashmir; famous Gujarat rulers and eminent Sena kings of Bengal; and renowned Orissa dynasties like the Shailodbhava, Kara, Kesari, Eastern Ganga and Later Eastern Ganga; to list only some of the most obvious.
The intense social dynamism of Indian society in the centuries before Islam, with tribal groups transiting from forest and pastoral settings to settled agriculture and contributing to state formation, the integration of tribal-local gods in regional and pan-India traditions, the economic integration of the country through itinerant merchants, are all totally ignored. The multiple roles of Hindu peasants as farmers and warriors is deliberately negated, in order to portray Hindu society as rigidly opposed to mobility.
There is deliberate suppression of the flourishing economy and growth of urban centres in the Pratihara, Paramara, Chahamana and other kingdoms, in order to sustain Prof. R.S. Sharma’s false hypothesis that Indian trade and economy fell into doldrums for three centuries after Harsha’s death. This falsification is linked to another blatant lie – that economic revival came with the advent of Islam.
Regarding Muslim rule, the old NCERT book ignores the Arab invasion of Sind and the four centuries of stiff resistance by the Hindu rulers of Sind, Kabul and Zabul. The blood-curdling numbers in which Hindus fell prey to Islamic invaders – fifty thousand defenders died in just one attack by Mahmud of Ghazni on Somnath – is never acknowledged. Akbar’s massacre of thirty thousand peasants seeking refuge in the Chittor Fort is, of course, unmentionable. The awesome numbers in which peasants and warriors were sold as part of a burgeoning slave trade throughout Muslim rule in India (continuing even as the East India Company was establishing itself) has simply failed to register on Marxist consciousness. The unilateral aggression of Mughal emperors from Jahangir to Aurangzeb against the Sikh Gurus is also downplayed.
This is by no means a wholistic critique. Yet discerning readers would have realized that Marxists’ ideological compulsions to whitewash the horrors of India’s Islamic encounter has led to unacceptable falsification of the pre-Islamic golden era as an age of feudal darkness. Marxist purging of the bloody conflicts of several centuries, which some Indians now dare designate as ‘the Hindu Holocaust,’ has also led them to misrepresent modern history by papering over Muslim separatism and insisting that the medieval age created a ‘composite culture’ that survived the Partition of the country on religious lines. It will be interesting to see the extent to which the new Marxist history books meet the expectations of the conscious citizen.
End of matter
The denial of history
Hindustan Times 22nd July 2003
The denial of history
By Sandhya Jain
Ever since NCERT Director, Dr. J.S. Rajput, made public his decision to modernize primers in all subjects, a barrage of one-sided criticism has accompanied the proposed updating of history textbooks. Even before new books could be commissioned, historians and writers with known left leanings began attributing motives to the then unknown writers. In the past year, hardly a day has passed without diatribes appearing in some newspaper or magazine.
In fairness, NCERT may have aroused misgivings in some quarters with its near-simultaneous decision to advise schools not to teach certain portions of the old history books on grounds that the Jat, Jain and Sikh communities had taken offence to some portions. But to the extent that these concerns were academically valid, they could have been accommodated in the new books. Thus the old authors would not have felt needled.
Anyway, several of NCERT’s new history books have since come out; some have been badly received. Yet one book – Medieval India for Class Eleven by Dr. Meenakshi Jain – has been greeted with deafening silence for nearly seven months. Fellow travelers have informed me that there has been intense pressure on Left historians to condemn this otherwise accurate narrative, as it deviates too sharply from their own perspective. Hence, under the aegis of the Left-dominated Indian History Congress (IHC), an Index of Errors of all the new books has been compiled; the section on Medieval India is presented under the signature of Prof. Irfan Habib.
No doubt Prof. Habib’s name has been used because of his richly deserved reputation as a formidable scholar. Yet it is equally undeniable that he ranks among intellectuals who deny legitimacy to the Hindu civilizational ethos and its place in national life. This school has sought to keep civilizational issues out of history books and to whitewash the remembered horrors of the medieval era.
NCERT’s new book on Medieval India has given them a rude shock. Although the author has relied solely upon the published works of renowned historians in India and abroad, the straightforward narrative has upset the stalwarts of the Indian History Congress, who protest that “the dark corners of the medieval era” have been brought into the light of day. In all objectivity, this should not be surprising as the period had few redeeming features (these have been mentioned wherever they occur). Prof. Habib and his friends should have accepted the truth gracefully. Instead, they have tried to challenge almost every fact in the book, little realizing that it has relied extensively upon their own published research and other standard works in the discipline! This brings their own intellectual credibility into question.
A few telling examples will suffice to elucidate how far intellectual integrity has been sacrificed at the altar of political ideology. For instance, the IHC Index of Errors sharply rebukes the author for claiming that Indian peasants suffered unparalleled exploitation under the Delhi Sultanate. Yet it is Irfan Habib who states that: “To begin with, the new conquerors and rulers…were of a different faith (Islam) from that of their predecessors… their principal achievements lay in a great systematization of agrarian exploitation and an immense concentration of the resources so obtained” [“The Social Distribution of Landed Property in Pre-British India,” Ed. R.S. Sharma and V. Jha, Indian Society: Historical Probings, PPH, 1974, p. 287].
The IHC refutes the statement that Sultan Iltutmish settled two thousand Turkish soldiers in the Doab to fortify his political and financial position. Yet Irfan Habib’s own father, Mohammad Habib, asserted that: “…Iltutmish was the first to realize the economic potentialities of the Doab. By setting two thousand Turkish soldiers there, he secured for the Turkish state the financial and administrative control of one of the most prosperous regions of northern India” [A Comprehensive History of India, ed. Mohammad Habib and K.A. Nizami, PPH, 1970, p. 227].
The NCERT authors’ critique of Balban as a weak ruler has been strongly disparaged. Here again, Habib and Nizami assert: “Balban, his officers and his army… proved themselves extraordinarily inefficient and clumsy” (ibid, p. 292) and “…it took Balban six years or more to crush the rebellion of Tughril and a riffraff of two hundred thousand had to be enlisted at Awadh to strengthen the regular army. Balban did not challenge any of the great Hindu rais… his officers failed against the raids of frontier Mongol officers… both in the civil and the military field Balban and his governing class had been tried and found wanting” (ibid, p. 303). The iconoclasm attributed to Sultan Alauddin Khalji is also a direct quotation from Habib and Nizami.
The IHC’s contention that there is no proof that Sher Shah extracted jaziya is absurd. This has been stated even in Prof. Satish Chandra’s (now replaced) NCERT textbook: “Jizyah continued to be collected from the Hindus, while his nobility was drawn almost exclusively from the Afghans” [p. 150]. Surely historical facts cannot be changed to suit every whim and fancy of the moment!
The low annual growth rate of the Indian population between the years 1600 – 1800, pegged at 0.14%, has been denied by the IHC. Alas, it is Irfan Habib who declaims: “…the population during the Mughal period did not remain stable though the compound rate of growth, 0.14% per annum, was hardly spectacular and was much lower than the rate attained during the nineteenth century” [The Cambridge Economic History of India, Vol. I, Orient Longman, 1982, p. 167, ed. Tapan Raychaudhari and Irfan Habib). Is Habib disowning his own scholarship?
The medieval slave trade in India rivals the early Arab and later European trade from Africa, and deserves equal documentation. It would be extremely unjust to negate this atrocity from the annals of world history, as Indian historians have tended to do. The IHC claims this flourishing market in human beings declined under the Mughals.
But the noted historian Dirk Kolff (Naukar, Rajput and Sepoy. The ethnohistory of a military labour market in Hindustan, 1450-1850, Cambridge University Press, 1990) is fairly emphatic: “There is irrefutable evidence for the enslavement and deportation of thousands and thousands of peasants by the Mughal aristocracy. Many of these were sold to countries to the west of India. The trade had flourished before 1400, when Multan was a considerable slave market, but it was continued after that, with Kabul as the main entrepot” (p. 10); “In these deportations, Jehangir also had a share” (p. 11); and “The Emperor Shahjahan also used to have offenders against the state transported beyond the river Indus to be ‘exchanged for Pathan dogs’.” He concludes: “Anyway, it is clear that, in the 1660s, Indian supply of and Persian demand for slaves was still considerable.”
One could similarly refute each and every objection in the so-called Index of Errors. It denies that the Mughals settled Afghans in areas of insurgence. But Kolff (ibid, p. 13) shows that: “Forced migrations were part of a deliberate policy in this area... Whereas Rajputs in Western Hindustan were exterminated and deported as slaves beyond the Indus, Afghans were deported towards the east and settled in areas notorious for Rajput turbulence. The Dilzak Afghans, for instance, completely disappeared from their native land as a result of intense military enrolment in India, but also because Jehangir deported a large number of them and ‘distributed’ them all over Hindustan and the Deccan.’ Afghans seem to have been especially in demand to deal with Rajputs…”
This is not to insist that there are no errata in the book. Muhammad Ghur should correctly be called Muhammad of Ghur and Muhammad Ghazni designated Muhammad of Ghazni. Bakhtiyar Khalji has been described as a slave when he was a free man, and the historian who commented adversely on Muhammad bin Tughlaq was Badauni, not Barani. But to quibble that the Dastur-ul Amal-i Alamgiri was not an official document when it was a compilation of official documents, shows how contrived the whole exercise is. None of these points merited listing in an Index of Errors; they could have been faxed to the NCERT Director for rectification in his next reprint.
End of Matter
The denial of history
By Sandhya Jain
Ever since NCERT Director, Dr. J.S. Rajput, made public his decision to modernize primers in all subjects, a barrage of one-sided criticism has accompanied the proposed updating of history textbooks. Even before new books could be commissioned, historians and writers with known left leanings began attributing motives to the then unknown writers. In the past year, hardly a day has passed without diatribes appearing in some newspaper or magazine.
In fairness, NCERT may have aroused misgivings in some quarters with its near-simultaneous decision to advise schools not to teach certain portions of the old history books on grounds that the Jat, Jain and Sikh communities had taken offence to some portions. But to the extent that these concerns were academically valid, they could have been accommodated in the new books. Thus the old authors would not have felt needled.
Anyway, several of NCERT’s new history books have since come out; some have been badly received. Yet one book – Medieval India for Class Eleven by Dr. Meenakshi Jain – has been greeted with deafening silence for nearly seven months. Fellow travelers have informed me that there has been intense pressure on Left historians to condemn this otherwise accurate narrative, as it deviates too sharply from their own perspective. Hence, under the aegis of the Left-dominated Indian History Congress (IHC), an Index of Errors of all the new books has been compiled; the section on Medieval India is presented under the signature of Prof. Irfan Habib.
No doubt Prof. Habib’s name has been used because of his richly deserved reputation as a formidable scholar. Yet it is equally undeniable that he ranks among intellectuals who deny legitimacy to the Hindu civilizational ethos and its place in national life. This school has sought to keep civilizational issues out of history books and to whitewash the remembered horrors of the medieval era.
NCERT’s new book on Medieval India has given them a rude shock. Although the author has relied solely upon the published works of renowned historians in India and abroad, the straightforward narrative has upset the stalwarts of the Indian History Congress, who protest that “the dark corners of the medieval era” have been brought into the light of day. In all objectivity, this should not be surprising as the period had few redeeming features (these have been mentioned wherever they occur). Prof. Habib and his friends should have accepted the truth gracefully. Instead, they have tried to challenge almost every fact in the book, little realizing that it has relied extensively upon their own published research and other standard works in the discipline! This brings their own intellectual credibility into question.
A few telling examples will suffice to elucidate how far intellectual integrity has been sacrificed at the altar of political ideology. For instance, the IHC Index of Errors sharply rebukes the author for claiming that Indian peasants suffered unparalleled exploitation under the Delhi Sultanate. Yet it is Irfan Habib who states that: “To begin with, the new conquerors and rulers…were of a different faith (Islam) from that of their predecessors… their principal achievements lay in a great systematization of agrarian exploitation and an immense concentration of the resources so obtained” [“The Social Distribution of Landed Property in Pre-British India,” Ed. R.S. Sharma and V. Jha, Indian Society: Historical Probings, PPH, 1974, p. 287].
The IHC refutes the statement that Sultan Iltutmish settled two thousand Turkish soldiers in the Doab to fortify his political and financial position. Yet Irfan Habib’s own father, Mohammad Habib, asserted that: “…Iltutmish was the first to realize the economic potentialities of the Doab. By setting two thousand Turkish soldiers there, he secured for the Turkish state the financial and administrative control of one of the most prosperous regions of northern India” [A Comprehensive History of India, ed. Mohammad Habib and K.A. Nizami, PPH, 1970, p. 227].
The NCERT authors’ critique of Balban as a weak ruler has been strongly disparaged. Here again, Habib and Nizami assert: “Balban, his officers and his army… proved themselves extraordinarily inefficient and clumsy” (ibid, p. 292) and “…it took Balban six years or more to crush the rebellion of Tughril and a riffraff of two hundred thousand had to be enlisted at Awadh to strengthen the regular army. Balban did not challenge any of the great Hindu rais… his officers failed against the raids of frontier Mongol officers… both in the civil and the military field Balban and his governing class had been tried and found wanting” (ibid, p. 303). The iconoclasm attributed to Sultan Alauddin Khalji is also a direct quotation from Habib and Nizami.
The IHC’s contention that there is no proof that Sher Shah extracted jaziya is absurd. This has been stated even in Prof. Satish Chandra’s (now replaced) NCERT textbook: “Jizyah continued to be collected from the Hindus, while his nobility was drawn almost exclusively from the Afghans” [p. 150]. Surely historical facts cannot be changed to suit every whim and fancy of the moment!
The low annual growth rate of the Indian population between the years 1600 – 1800, pegged at 0.14%, has been denied by the IHC. Alas, it is Irfan Habib who declaims: “…the population during the Mughal period did not remain stable though the compound rate of growth, 0.14% per annum, was hardly spectacular and was much lower than the rate attained during the nineteenth century” [The Cambridge Economic History of India, Vol. I, Orient Longman, 1982, p. 167, ed. Tapan Raychaudhari and Irfan Habib). Is Habib disowning his own scholarship?
The medieval slave trade in India rivals the early Arab and later European trade from Africa, and deserves equal documentation. It would be extremely unjust to negate this atrocity from the annals of world history, as Indian historians have tended to do. The IHC claims this flourishing market in human beings declined under the Mughals.
But the noted historian Dirk Kolff (Naukar, Rajput and Sepoy. The ethnohistory of a military labour market in Hindustan, 1450-1850, Cambridge University Press, 1990) is fairly emphatic: “There is irrefutable evidence for the enslavement and deportation of thousands and thousands of peasants by the Mughal aristocracy. Many of these were sold to countries to the west of India. The trade had flourished before 1400, when Multan was a considerable slave market, but it was continued after that, with Kabul as the main entrepot” (p. 10); “In these deportations, Jehangir also had a share” (p. 11); and “The Emperor Shahjahan also used to have offenders against the state transported beyond the river Indus to be ‘exchanged for Pathan dogs’.” He concludes: “Anyway, it is clear that, in the 1660s, Indian supply of and Persian demand for slaves was still considerable.”
One could similarly refute each and every objection in the so-called Index of Errors. It denies that the Mughals settled Afghans in areas of insurgence. But Kolff (ibid, p. 13) shows that: “Forced migrations were part of a deliberate policy in this area... Whereas Rajputs in Western Hindustan were exterminated and deported as slaves beyond the Indus, Afghans were deported towards the east and settled in areas notorious for Rajput turbulence. The Dilzak Afghans, for instance, completely disappeared from their native land as a result of intense military enrolment in India, but also because Jehangir deported a large number of them and ‘distributed’ them all over Hindustan and the Deccan.’ Afghans seem to have been especially in demand to deal with Rajputs…”
This is not to insist that there are no errata in the book. Muhammad Ghur should correctly be called Muhammad of Ghur and Muhammad Ghazni designated Muhammad of Ghazni. Bakhtiyar Khalji has been described as a slave when he was a free man, and the historian who commented adversely on Muhammad bin Tughlaq was Badauni, not Barani. But to quibble that the Dastur-ul Amal-i Alamgiri was not an official document when it was a compilation of official documents, shows how contrived the whole exercise is. None of these points merited listing in an Index of Errors; they could have been faxed to the NCERT Director for rectification in his next reprint.
End of Matter
Left: clean-bowled by History
Pioneer 9th March 2004
Left: clean-bowled by History
By Sandhya Jain
A sense of irony grips me as I recollect the late Ramesh Thapar’s contempt for family members who served the British Empire; “toadies,” he would sneer. Impressed by what appeared a rare display of courage, I never forgot the word, partly because it formed part of Thapar’s unique repertoire and partly because it rolled so convincingly off his tongue.
‘Toadies’ now comes to mind as one sees Left historians bending backwards to wrest legitimacy for a discredited interpretation of Indian history, one supported by Western universities that patronize the self-same scholars with fellowships, seminar invitations, and other freebies. This is a tightly controlled intellectual circuit, and regardless of the party in power in these Western nations, the political-intellectual establishment subscribes to a specific view about non-Western and non-Christian countries like India. Communists, Leftists, assorted socialists and minority intellectuals opposed to the rise of an autochthonous intellectual and civilizational framework are thus natural allies of Western establishments.
It is India’s tragedy that the regime that assumed power at independence elected to sponsor a sectarian history and disallowed reinstatement of the autochthonous civilization as foundational ethos of the fledgling modern nation-state. Decades of State patronage gave India a version of history that negated the greatness of the ancient past in which seekers from the known world came to genuflect before our sages; equated Islamic iconoclasm with ordinary banditry; deleted the sustained Hindu resistance to the invaders; purged the sheer scale of massacres of soldiers and ordinary citizens in every military encounter; and expunged all mention of the flourishing slave trade in Hindu men, women and children for several hundred years.
As such a history was mandated by political calculations and the political ideology of its chief patron, Mr. Jawaharlal Nehru, its rectification, especially at the level of school textbooks, required the presence of a non-Nehruvian dispensation. Although the BJP has shown far less sensitivity to civilizational issues than desired, it did permit the writing of new history textbooks, if only because the prevalent ones were badly written and hopelessly outdated.
Today, the NCERT textbooks have emerged as the principal ideological battlefield as they are in a sense even more important than Ayodhya. The writing of history free from Leftist biases and control has brought India’s civilizational struggle to the forefront of the intellectual arena. This has given the contest a piercing immediacy, accentuated by the fact that non-Left historians will not accommodate Marxist denials of historical truths. At the same time, the growing popular demand for a more honest chronicling and interpretation of the past has forced the Left to recognize that it has lost its old hegemony and credibility. It now retains audience only with the virulently anti-Hindu media and Western academic circles. Here too, the returns are diminishing as events queer the pitch for those determined to promote an imagined past.
It is poetic justice that Ayodhya has emerged as a major area of denouement, despite Marxist desperation to maintain the hegemony of the invader Babur in defiance of common sense. Last year, the Archaeological Survey of India not only uncovered a Gupta era temple structure beneath the old Babri Masjid floor, but found evidence of human habitation at Ayodhya from 1500 BC. In one stroke, this took the history of Ayodhya back by seven hundred years and convincingly settled an old academic mystery about the antiquity of the Ramayana vis-à-vis the Mahabharata.
Hitherto, archaeologists had speculated that the Mahabharata might possibly be the older epic as all findings related to a period identified with it. Yet Hindu tradition was adamant that the Ramayana was older, and this civilizational memory was finally vindicated in 2003. Ayodhya presents a salutary lesson to honest historians about how ancient civilizations preserve the memory of their past. To demean or disown one of the single-most important archaeological and historical discoveries of the modern world merely because it imperils a discredited ideology is an insult to the intellectual quest for truth. To try to dismiss it as an expression of religious nationalism (whatever that means) is intellectual chicanery at its worst.
A corollary of the unilateral exoneration of Islamic atrocities by Marxist historians is their sustained denial of the glories of pre-Islamic India and their rabid insistence – despite convincing evidence to the contrary – that an alien race of Aryans (who came from God knows where) are the ancestors of today’s upper caste Hindus. Currently, some White racists are working overtime to prove that upper caste Hindu men have descended from White Aryan men and native (presumably Dravidian) women. I fail to understand how such an obscenely sexist and racist proposition can be sustained even theoretically, and this may explain why it has not been adopted by our intellectual peddlers.
Excavations over far-flung sites of the Indus-Harappa-Saraswati civilization prove beyond doubt that there was neither an Aryan invasion nor migration to India, and that the civilization was entirely indigenous in its origins. Its Vedic roots have been established by distinguished archaeologists like Dr. R.S. Bisht and Dr. Gregory Possehl, and cannot be denied by low level quibbling. The Indus-Saraswati culture has continuity with our contemporary culture, and as its authors called themselves Arya (noble, not a race), we owe it to ourselves to spurn Hindu-baiters and honour ourselves with the epithet. Those unfit for inclusion in this category are, of course, mleccha (uncultured).
It bears repetition that the primary identity of a nation will necessarily derive from the culture and traditions of the indigenous people (Gaul in France, Saxon in Germany). This is particularly so when this culture survives and continues into the present, and its adherents remain – despite the entry of other groups – the majority community in the land. Hence there can be no legitimate dispute, much less grievance, that what is today known as ‘Hindu’ is the primary identity of India, Bharat, Hindustan.
The land of Bharat has ever existed as a distinct idea and entity in the primordial memories of its people. Vedic poetry resounds with deep love for the land. The Vedic seers, however, linked the terrain with pride in a unique culture, the acceptance of which conferred upon one the membership of both land and community. In other words, Arya culture involved territorial assimilation through cultural integration. As Sukumar Dutt argued, our ancestors expanded not so much by political conquest as by amalgamating with Arya culture. The mother country was thus built through spiritual and cultural affinities, which bestowed a special uniqueness and unity to what would otherwise be only a political or geographical unit.
Over the centuries this spiritual unity welcomed into its fold even immigrant groups willing to accept Arya culture. For here, as Dutt asserted, culture, and not race or language, was the passport for admission. Cultural assimilation could thus transform even foreign origins into birthright, granting the immigrant community even a leadership role in the socio-spiritual-cultural polity. It was in this manner that the Gurjara Pratiharas evolved into the Agnikula Rajputs at Mount Abu, and earned their spurs in the defence of dharma.
Centuries later, this same spiritual-cultural impulse produced modern-day nationalism and the anti-colonial movement. Historians who equate the mainstream national movement with the pro-colonial behaviour of the Muslim League need to be sent back to grammar school.
End of matter
Left: clean-bowled by History
By Sandhya Jain
A sense of irony grips me as I recollect the late Ramesh Thapar’s contempt for family members who served the British Empire; “toadies,” he would sneer. Impressed by what appeared a rare display of courage, I never forgot the word, partly because it formed part of Thapar’s unique repertoire and partly because it rolled so convincingly off his tongue.
‘Toadies’ now comes to mind as one sees Left historians bending backwards to wrest legitimacy for a discredited interpretation of Indian history, one supported by Western universities that patronize the self-same scholars with fellowships, seminar invitations, and other freebies. This is a tightly controlled intellectual circuit, and regardless of the party in power in these Western nations, the political-intellectual establishment subscribes to a specific view about non-Western and non-Christian countries like India. Communists, Leftists, assorted socialists and minority intellectuals opposed to the rise of an autochthonous intellectual and civilizational framework are thus natural allies of Western establishments.
It is India’s tragedy that the regime that assumed power at independence elected to sponsor a sectarian history and disallowed reinstatement of the autochthonous civilization as foundational ethos of the fledgling modern nation-state. Decades of State patronage gave India a version of history that negated the greatness of the ancient past in which seekers from the known world came to genuflect before our sages; equated Islamic iconoclasm with ordinary banditry; deleted the sustained Hindu resistance to the invaders; purged the sheer scale of massacres of soldiers and ordinary citizens in every military encounter; and expunged all mention of the flourishing slave trade in Hindu men, women and children for several hundred years.
As such a history was mandated by political calculations and the political ideology of its chief patron, Mr. Jawaharlal Nehru, its rectification, especially at the level of school textbooks, required the presence of a non-Nehruvian dispensation. Although the BJP has shown far less sensitivity to civilizational issues than desired, it did permit the writing of new history textbooks, if only because the prevalent ones were badly written and hopelessly outdated.
Today, the NCERT textbooks have emerged as the principal ideological battlefield as they are in a sense even more important than Ayodhya. The writing of history free from Leftist biases and control has brought India’s civilizational struggle to the forefront of the intellectual arena. This has given the contest a piercing immediacy, accentuated by the fact that non-Left historians will not accommodate Marxist denials of historical truths. At the same time, the growing popular demand for a more honest chronicling and interpretation of the past has forced the Left to recognize that it has lost its old hegemony and credibility. It now retains audience only with the virulently anti-Hindu media and Western academic circles. Here too, the returns are diminishing as events queer the pitch for those determined to promote an imagined past.
It is poetic justice that Ayodhya has emerged as a major area of denouement, despite Marxist desperation to maintain the hegemony of the invader Babur in defiance of common sense. Last year, the Archaeological Survey of India not only uncovered a Gupta era temple structure beneath the old Babri Masjid floor, but found evidence of human habitation at Ayodhya from 1500 BC. In one stroke, this took the history of Ayodhya back by seven hundred years and convincingly settled an old academic mystery about the antiquity of the Ramayana vis-à-vis the Mahabharata.
Hitherto, archaeologists had speculated that the Mahabharata might possibly be the older epic as all findings related to a period identified with it. Yet Hindu tradition was adamant that the Ramayana was older, and this civilizational memory was finally vindicated in 2003. Ayodhya presents a salutary lesson to honest historians about how ancient civilizations preserve the memory of their past. To demean or disown one of the single-most important archaeological and historical discoveries of the modern world merely because it imperils a discredited ideology is an insult to the intellectual quest for truth. To try to dismiss it as an expression of religious nationalism (whatever that means) is intellectual chicanery at its worst.
A corollary of the unilateral exoneration of Islamic atrocities by Marxist historians is their sustained denial of the glories of pre-Islamic India and their rabid insistence – despite convincing evidence to the contrary – that an alien race of Aryans (who came from God knows where) are the ancestors of today’s upper caste Hindus. Currently, some White racists are working overtime to prove that upper caste Hindu men have descended from White Aryan men and native (presumably Dravidian) women. I fail to understand how such an obscenely sexist and racist proposition can be sustained even theoretically, and this may explain why it has not been adopted by our intellectual peddlers.
Excavations over far-flung sites of the Indus-Harappa-Saraswati civilization prove beyond doubt that there was neither an Aryan invasion nor migration to India, and that the civilization was entirely indigenous in its origins. Its Vedic roots have been established by distinguished archaeologists like Dr. R.S. Bisht and Dr. Gregory Possehl, and cannot be denied by low level quibbling. The Indus-Saraswati culture has continuity with our contemporary culture, and as its authors called themselves Arya (noble, not a race), we owe it to ourselves to spurn Hindu-baiters and honour ourselves with the epithet. Those unfit for inclusion in this category are, of course, mleccha (uncultured).
It bears repetition that the primary identity of a nation will necessarily derive from the culture and traditions of the indigenous people (Gaul in France, Saxon in Germany). This is particularly so when this culture survives and continues into the present, and its adherents remain – despite the entry of other groups – the majority community in the land. Hence there can be no legitimate dispute, much less grievance, that what is today known as ‘Hindu’ is the primary identity of India, Bharat, Hindustan.
The land of Bharat has ever existed as a distinct idea and entity in the primordial memories of its people. Vedic poetry resounds with deep love for the land. The Vedic seers, however, linked the terrain with pride in a unique culture, the acceptance of which conferred upon one the membership of both land and community. In other words, Arya culture involved territorial assimilation through cultural integration. As Sukumar Dutt argued, our ancestors expanded not so much by political conquest as by amalgamating with Arya culture. The mother country was thus built through spiritual and cultural affinities, which bestowed a special uniqueness and unity to what would otherwise be only a political or geographical unit.
Over the centuries this spiritual unity welcomed into its fold even immigrant groups willing to accept Arya culture. For here, as Dutt asserted, culture, and not race or language, was the passport for admission. Cultural assimilation could thus transform even foreign origins into birthright, granting the immigrant community even a leadership role in the socio-spiritual-cultural polity. It was in this manner that the Gurjara Pratiharas evolved into the Agnikula Rajputs at Mount Abu, and earned their spurs in the defence of dharma.
Centuries later, this same spiritual-cultural impulse produced modern-day nationalism and the anti-colonial movement. Historians who equate the mainstream national movement with the pro-colonial behaviour of the Muslim League need to be sent back to grammar school.
End of matter
History: trial by ideology
Pioneer 29th June 2004
History: trial by ideology
Sandhya Jain
Joseph K was submitted to the motions of due process of law and allowed to have his say before being snuffed out with banal savagery in Franz Kafka’s grimly prophetic The Trial. Reviving memories of the communist leviathan since consigned to the dustbin of history, Mr. Arjun Singh’s committee to review NCERT’s new history textbooks has surpassed that sham tribunal with its peremptory decision to recommend scrapping of all textbooks commissioned by the NDA government.
Though appointed on 12 June 2004, Professors S. Settar, J.S. Grewal and Barun De arrived in the capital only on 22 June and just three days later proposed wholesale purging of the books, without according the authors the minimal courtesy of a hearing. Press reports indicate that the committee worked to a pre-determined schedule, if not to a command performance. Pre-selected experts and activists appeared before the committee, while written offers of cooperation from the affected authors received the cold shoulder.
While no chargesheet was served nor evidence adduced regarding so-called “distorted and communally biased portions” in any of the books under scrutiny, the trial was conducted with unseemly haste. In the absence of a formal prosecution, there was, naturally, no defence. Judgment was pronounced at a hastily convened press conference.
I am personally pleased with this blatant partisanship, as it has taken the subject of history out of the closet and into the public arena, where all can see the intellectual dishonesty of Marxist historians. Besides tarnishing its academic credentials by asserting the primacy of ideology before the discipline of History, the committee is tainted by what legal circles call a conflict of interest.
Prof. J.S. Grewal, the medievalist on the committee, has jointly authored works with Prof. Irfan Habib, who authored the medieval India section of the Indian History Congress’ notorious Index of Errors, which spearheaded the Leftist attack on NCERT. Some news reports suggest that Prof. Habib met the committee, as did activists of Sahmat, an organization that hosted press conferences wherein Leftist academics spat venom against NCERT.
Even worse, the committee executed a personal agenda, disregarding the mandate given by the HRD Ministry. Its order explicitly stated that as textbooks for the current year had already been printed and teaching commenced in most schools, it would be “impractical to withdraw these books at this stage…without causing dislocation in the studies of millions of students.” The panel of historians was only to identify “distorted and communally biased portions,” if any, and simultaneously recommend short passages to fill in gaps that may develop as a result of deletion of impugned passages.
The eminent historians superseded the Ministry’s order in totality, for reasons that need to be made public. The committee did not make even a suggestive list of errors or instances of communal tinge in any of the books it rubbished. This suggests, as the authors claim, that there are no such passages, and that rather than honestly admitting this, the historians served a political agenda. By not identifying so-called saffron passages, the committee also evaded the treacherous trap of suggesting substitute inputs. For such an exercise would have completely discredited Marxists, as they would have had to reveal, in black and white, what facts of history they wished to erase or (re)interpret.
An affected author has claimed that the books are being scrapped at the instance of a cabal determined to monopolize the rendition of Indian history. Certainly the committee’s behaviour lends credence to the view that Marxists cannot afford an open debate on history, and rely exclusively on State power to suppress facts and impose interpretations upon an innocent public.
Readers who think history is essentially a factual narrative of what happened in the past and cannot be affected by ideological preferences may wish to understand some fundamental issues in danger of distortion at the hands of Indian Marxists and their fellow travellers. To begin with, we need to appreciate that India is no ordinary country, and that the history of India is actually the story of the triumphs and travails of a great civilization.
This civilization is anathema to Indian Marxists, who rabidly deny its unity, integrity, uniqueness and continuity. This is why they uphold colonial falsehoods about an Aryan Invasion, even after it has been seriously discredited by academics and archaeologists the world over. Yet Marxists project India as a landmass subject to successive invasions (and immigrations) since the dawn of history, with perhaps only the so-called Dravidians as original inhabitants. In this worldview, Vedic (Arya) Hindus are not a coherent community, and the Jain and Buddhist traditions are projected as rival streams rather than as parts of an unified spiritual spectrum.
Ignoring the magnitude of evidence regarding ancient India’s spiritual and commercial forays in the world, Marxists pretend that India was completely isolated from the world until Islam arrived as invader-saviour and ended her seclusion. Violently silencing the view that Islam triggered off the rigidity of the caste system, Marxists claim that Islam transformed Hindu society with a message of equality.
Under the patronage of the Nehruvian State, Indian Marxists have completely disallowed discussion on the cultural deadlock in Indian society following Islam’s violent advent in the sub-continent. The havoc wrought by Islam on the Indian people is similarly taboo, and till date there is not a single account documenting the sheer numbers of natives killed in resisting Islamic kings and warriors.
Readers may be surprised to learn that far from lacking a sense of history (another colonial propaganda and legacy), Indian society scrupulously documented the tragedy and heroism of its encounter with Islam. Through the tenth to the nineteenth century, the writings of bards, wandering saints, women of princely families, and other strata of society, all reflect a startling continuity of perception towards Islam. It was the Nehruvian State that ruthlessly purged this vision and created a great schizophrenia in national consciousness that is called secularism, but has a distinctly non-secular tilt. Yet India cannot be healed unless she comes to terms with her past, and she cannot come to terms with her past until she faces it in all its blood and gore.
Marxists are committed to fragmenting and erasing India’s civilizational memory, which is why they are resisting even simple non-interpretative narratives from reaching school children. An old textbook dislodged by NCERT managed the feat of writing about Jehangir’s reign without mentioning his execution of Sikh Guru Arjan. The persecution and execution of subsequent Gurus by successive Mughal rulers was similarly glossed over, with the result that the ordinary student simply failed to comprehend why groups like the Sikhs, Marathas and Jats offered such sustained resistance to Mughal rule.
Not only do Marxists avoid debate, they pretend that the Index of Errors was not rebuffed by NCERT’s Fallacies in the IHC’s Index of Errors. In the circumstances, they could hardly be expected to do justice to the new books by meticulously examining each one for bias or distortion. It will be a sad mockery of education if the committee now recommends textbooks published by Leftist NGO Ekalavya whose books were not accepted even by the Digvijay Singh government in Madhya Pradesh, or Delhi Government’s SCERT which suggest that Delhi residents provoked their own massacre by Nadir Shah, who no doubt came as an invader-guest!
End of Matter
History: trial by ideology
Sandhya Jain
Joseph K was submitted to the motions of due process of law and allowed to have his say before being snuffed out with banal savagery in Franz Kafka’s grimly prophetic The Trial. Reviving memories of the communist leviathan since consigned to the dustbin of history, Mr. Arjun Singh’s committee to review NCERT’s new history textbooks has surpassed that sham tribunal with its peremptory decision to recommend scrapping of all textbooks commissioned by the NDA government.
Though appointed on 12 June 2004, Professors S. Settar, J.S. Grewal and Barun De arrived in the capital only on 22 June and just three days later proposed wholesale purging of the books, without according the authors the minimal courtesy of a hearing. Press reports indicate that the committee worked to a pre-determined schedule, if not to a command performance. Pre-selected experts and activists appeared before the committee, while written offers of cooperation from the affected authors received the cold shoulder.
While no chargesheet was served nor evidence adduced regarding so-called “distorted and communally biased portions” in any of the books under scrutiny, the trial was conducted with unseemly haste. In the absence of a formal prosecution, there was, naturally, no defence. Judgment was pronounced at a hastily convened press conference.
I am personally pleased with this blatant partisanship, as it has taken the subject of history out of the closet and into the public arena, where all can see the intellectual dishonesty of Marxist historians. Besides tarnishing its academic credentials by asserting the primacy of ideology before the discipline of History, the committee is tainted by what legal circles call a conflict of interest.
Prof. J.S. Grewal, the medievalist on the committee, has jointly authored works with Prof. Irfan Habib, who authored the medieval India section of the Indian History Congress’ notorious Index of Errors, which spearheaded the Leftist attack on NCERT. Some news reports suggest that Prof. Habib met the committee, as did activists of Sahmat, an organization that hosted press conferences wherein Leftist academics spat venom against NCERT.
Even worse, the committee executed a personal agenda, disregarding the mandate given by the HRD Ministry. Its order explicitly stated that as textbooks for the current year had already been printed and teaching commenced in most schools, it would be “impractical to withdraw these books at this stage…without causing dislocation in the studies of millions of students.” The panel of historians was only to identify “distorted and communally biased portions,” if any, and simultaneously recommend short passages to fill in gaps that may develop as a result of deletion of impugned passages.
The eminent historians superseded the Ministry’s order in totality, for reasons that need to be made public. The committee did not make even a suggestive list of errors or instances of communal tinge in any of the books it rubbished. This suggests, as the authors claim, that there are no such passages, and that rather than honestly admitting this, the historians served a political agenda. By not identifying so-called saffron passages, the committee also evaded the treacherous trap of suggesting substitute inputs. For such an exercise would have completely discredited Marxists, as they would have had to reveal, in black and white, what facts of history they wished to erase or (re)interpret.
An affected author has claimed that the books are being scrapped at the instance of a cabal determined to monopolize the rendition of Indian history. Certainly the committee’s behaviour lends credence to the view that Marxists cannot afford an open debate on history, and rely exclusively on State power to suppress facts and impose interpretations upon an innocent public.
Readers who think history is essentially a factual narrative of what happened in the past and cannot be affected by ideological preferences may wish to understand some fundamental issues in danger of distortion at the hands of Indian Marxists and their fellow travellers. To begin with, we need to appreciate that India is no ordinary country, and that the history of India is actually the story of the triumphs and travails of a great civilization.
This civilization is anathema to Indian Marxists, who rabidly deny its unity, integrity, uniqueness and continuity. This is why they uphold colonial falsehoods about an Aryan Invasion, even after it has been seriously discredited by academics and archaeologists the world over. Yet Marxists project India as a landmass subject to successive invasions (and immigrations) since the dawn of history, with perhaps only the so-called Dravidians as original inhabitants. In this worldview, Vedic (Arya) Hindus are not a coherent community, and the Jain and Buddhist traditions are projected as rival streams rather than as parts of an unified spiritual spectrum.
Ignoring the magnitude of evidence regarding ancient India’s spiritual and commercial forays in the world, Marxists pretend that India was completely isolated from the world until Islam arrived as invader-saviour and ended her seclusion. Violently silencing the view that Islam triggered off the rigidity of the caste system, Marxists claim that Islam transformed Hindu society with a message of equality.
Under the patronage of the Nehruvian State, Indian Marxists have completely disallowed discussion on the cultural deadlock in Indian society following Islam’s violent advent in the sub-continent. The havoc wrought by Islam on the Indian people is similarly taboo, and till date there is not a single account documenting the sheer numbers of natives killed in resisting Islamic kings and warriors.
Readers may be surprised to learn that far from lacking a sense of history (another colonial propaganda and legacy), Indian society scrupulously documented the tragedy and heroism of its encounter with Islam. Through the tenth to the nineteenth century, the writings of bards, wandering saints, women of princely families, and other strata of society, all reflect a startling continuity of perception towards Islam. It was the Nehruvian State that ruthlessly purged this vision and created a great schizophrenia in national consciousness that is called secularism, but has a distinctly non-secular tilt. Yet India cannot be healed unless she comes to terms with her past, and she cannot come to terms with her past until she faces it in all its blood and gore.
Marxists are committed to fragmenting and erasing India’s civilizational memory, which is why they are resisting even simple non-interpretative narratives from reaching school children. An old textbook dislodged by NCERT managed the feat of writing about Jehangir’s reign without mentioning his execution of Sikh Guru Arjan. The persecution and execution of subsequent Gurus by successive Mughal rulers was similarly glossed over, with the result that the ordinary student simply failed to comprehend why groups like the Sikhs, Marathas and Jats offered such sustained resistance to Mughal rule.
Not only do Marxists avoid debate, they pretend that the Index of Errors was not rebuffed by NCERT’s Fallacies in the IHC’s Index of Errors. In the circumstances, they could hardly be expected to do justice to the new books by meticulously examining each one for bias or distortion. It will be a sad mockery of education if the committee now recommends textbooks published by Leftist NGO Ekalavya whose books were not accepted even by the Digvijay Singh government in Madhya Pradesh, or Delhi Government’s SCERT which suggest that Delhi residents provoked their own massacre by Nadir Shah, who no doubt came as an invader-guest!
End of Matter
The lion and the historian
Pioneer 27th July 2004
The lion and the historian
By Sandhya Jain
A famous African adage avers that until the lions have their own historians, the history of the hunt will always glorify the hunter. This, in a sense, is the crux of the current controversy over which School of historians should legitimately write history textbooks for secondary and senior secondary school students.
Unlike most nations of the world, India’s native people, culture and civilization have a unique, unbroken continuity with their geographical homeland, and do not suffer the ethnic or religious ruptures that have ravaged other lands and disconnected their past from the present. India’s past runs perennially into the present, so that its history is truly the history of a civilization, perhaps the oldest civilization in the world. Its keynote is unity and continuity, which it has maintained despite a millennium of turmoil and torment.
India’s true history is in danger on account of a State-supported ideological war that seeks to sever society’s link with the past, using history as a tool to pervert national memory and destroy cultural and national identity. The battlefield is the minds of school-going children, who are sought to be poisoned with an unparalleled contempt for the past, especially India’s civilizational verities and values.
The NCERT History textbook controversy is a contest between civilizational India versus non-Indic historiography. Though clubbed under the generic term ‘Marxist,’ this school of thought generously accommodates the anti-Hindu biases of Islamic and Western-Christian academics. Its principal objective is to deny the violent entry of Islam into India and negate the horrors perpetuated by Islamic rulers, especially the extensive massacres of natives; destruction of temples and religious persecution; the bitter oppression of the people through extortionist land revenue, jaziya, deportation to slave markets abroad, and the constant use of armed might to quell restive subjects.
Marxist historians worked assiduously to achieve these objectives. However, to whitewash the thorny events of the medieval era, they needed to pervert the preceding epoch as an age of darkness and non-achievement. This explains Marxist fidelity to the colonial claims of an Aryan Invasion, and their refusal to acknowledge the proven synchronicity between the Harappan Civilization and the Vedic Age. To add insult to injury, they now proclaim that beef was eaten cuisine in the Vedic period, though little credible evidence has been adduced in this regard.
Discerning readers may wonder how motivated historians pervert the past. As an example, I shall discuss the case of Shri Rama, currently regarded as the foremost symbol of Hindu bigotry. I urge readers to dissociate themselves from a controversial movement to build a temple at the Shri Rama’s birthplace, and to consider only if his story has a legitimate place in history books, as a major part of our national heritage.
Most readers would know that the Hindu tradition has always maintained that the Ramayana of Valmiki was older than Vyas’ Mahabharata. For several decades, however, archaeologists could only establish Mahabharata sites, and seriously wondered if the Mahabharata could be the older epic. Archaeologists like Prof. B.B. Lal struggled valiantly to establish a genre of “Ramayana sites” that could not be wished away, but Marxist scholars had the power to scuttle excavations at critical points, until the court case over the title suit to the Ram Janmabhoomi gave the Archaeological Survey of India a unique opportunity to excavate the site without hindrance in 2002.
It is well-known that the ASI’s brief was to examine if the disputed Babri structure was built over a pre-existing temple. The ASI found a tenth century temple complex that had probably been destroyed by floods, of which period a circular Shiva temple remained. The materials of this temple were reused in a grand twelfth century temple, of which fifty pillar bases and a 150-feet long and six-foot wide wall were excavated. The Babri Mosque was found to cut into the pillar bases of this temple. When the Babri structure was pulled down on 6 December 1992, a shilalekha (inscription) was found in the Nagari script, which stated that King Govind Chand of Kanauj built and dedicated a temple of unparalleled beauty to Vishnu Hari, who had slain Bali and Dashanan (Ravana). This clearly indicated that the temple was a Ram temple, as Rama alone killed Ravana.
But the most significant aspect of the ASI dig was the finding of human habitation at Ayodhya from 1500 BC, which is seven hundred years earlier than previously thought. The Ayodhya excavation thus settled the controversy about the antiquity of the Ramayana vis-à-vis the Mahabharata, and vindicated the Hindu practice of preserving history through civilizational memory. My question is whether this memory of the Prince of Ayodhya legitimately deserves to be honoured with a place in history books or consigned to oblivion as an expression of Hindu communalism?
Of course, our Marxist friends have had no compunctions in shocking young school students with the claim that our Vedic ancestors, particularly the wily Brahmins, were voracious eaters of cow meat. Undeterred by inconvenient facts like the veneration of the cow in the Vedas and the prohibition on its slaughter, they have continued to perpetuate a colonial falsehood that was invented to facilitate the conversion agenda of Christian missionaries. Discerning readers would have realized that the sudden vehemence with which Marxists are now propagating that Vedic Hindus ate beef is nothing but a crude attempt to de-sacralize the cow and assist the conversion agenda of evangelizing faiths.
Finally, we come to what Prof. Shiva G. Bajpai of Wisconsin University calls “the burden of bad ideas.” In October last year, an international academic consensus at California State University, CA, USA, stated that there was no Aryan Invasion of India. Hindu civilizational memory always maintained that its spiritual-cultural tradition began with the Vedas centred round the region of the river Saraswati. For Hindus, ‘Arya’ simply meant ‘noble,’ and denoted adherence to an elevated culture; it had no ethnic connotations. Though evidence of an Aryan Invasion was always slim, Sir William James floated the theory was to establish that India was a land that passively submitted to successive foreign rule and conquest; that its great Vedic civilization was itself an alien graft; and that British rule was merely the last of such a sequence.
Normally, such a view should have been scrapped once the British departed and subsequent excavations established that the geo-cultural areas of the Harappan and Vedic cultures were historically overlapping and identical. But Indian Marxists and Islamic intellectuals (the two often overlapped) joined hands and secured patronage to propound the view that the builders of the Harappan civilization and the composers of the Vedic hymns were different people.
The idea, of course, was to deny the indigenous origins of Hindu civilization long after it had become impossible to sustain this myth. The objective was to place Arab-Turk-Afghan invasions in “perspective” as a recurrent theme in Indian history, somewhat like the annual floods in the Brahmaputra. We thus have the ultimate irony that the organizers of the California conference are writing to school textbook writers all over the world to ensure that future writings on Indian history assert that there was no Aryan Invasion of India. NCERT has also received such a letter; one shudders to think what its new political masters intend to do with it.
End of Matter
The lion and the historian
By Sandhya Jain
A famous African adage avers that until the lions have their own historians, the history of the hunt will always glorify the hunter. This, in a sense, is the crux of the current controversy over which School of historians should legitimately write history textbooks for secondary and senior secondary school students.
Unlike most nations of the world, India’s native people, culture and civilization have a unique, unbroken continuity with their geographical homeland, and do not suffer the ethnic or religious ruptures that have ravaged other lands and disconnected their past from the present. India’s past runs perennially into the present, so that its history is truly the history of a civilization, perhaps the oldest civilization in the world. Its keynote is unity and continuity, which it has maintained despite a millennium of turmoil and torment.
India’s true history is in danger on account of a State-supported ideological war that seeks to sever society’s link with the past, using history as a tool to pervert national memory and destroy cultural and national identity. The battlefield is the minds of school-going children, who are sought to be poisoned with an unparalleled contempt for the past, especially India’s civilizational verities and values.
The NCERT History textbook controversy is a contest between civilizational India versus non-Indic historiography. Though clubbed under the generic term ‘Marxist,’ this school of thought generously accommodates the anti-Hindu biases of Islamic and Western-Christian academics. Its principal objective is to deny the violent entry of Islam into India and negate the horrors perpetuated by Islamic rulers, especially the extensive massacres of natives; destruction of temples and religious persecution; the bitter oppression of the people through extortionist land revenue, jaziya, deportation to slave markets abroad, and the constant use of armed might to quell restive subjects.
Marxist historians worked assiduously to achieve these objectives. However, to whitewash the thorny events of the medieval era, they needed to pervert the preceding epoch as an age of darkness and non-achievement. This explains Marxist fidelity to the colonial claims of an Aryan Invasion, and their refusal to acknowledge the proven synchronicity between the Harappan Civilization and the Vedic Age. To add insult to injury, they now proclaim that beef was eaten cuisine in the Vedic period, though little credible evidence has been adduced in this regard.
Discerning readers may wonder how motivated historians pervert the past. As an example, I shall discuss the case of Shri Rama, currently regarded as the foremost symbol of Hindu bigotry. I urge readers to dissociate themselves from a controversial movement to build a temple at the Shri Rama’s birthplace, and to consider only if his story has a legitimate place in history books, as a major part of our national heritage.
Most readers would know that the Hindu tradition has always maintained that the Ramayana of Valmiki was older than Vyas’ Mahabharata. For several decades, however, archaeologists could only establish Mahabharata sites, and seriously wondered if the Mahabharata could be the older epic. Archaeologists like Prof. B.B. Lal struggled valiantly to establish a genre of “Ramayana sites” that could not be wished away, but Marxist scholars had the power to scuttle excavations at critical points, until the court case over the title suit to the Ram Janmabhoomi gave the Archaeological Survey of India a unique opportunity to excavate the site without hindrance in 2002.
It is well-known that the ASI’s brief was to examine if the disputed Babri structure was built over a pre-existing temple. The ASI found a tenth century temple complex that had probably been destroyed by floods, of which period a circular Shiva temple remained. The materials of this temple were reused in a grand twelfth century temple, of which fifty pillar bases and a 150-feet long and six-foot wide wall were excavated. The Babri Mosque was found to cut into the pillar bases of this temple. When the Babri structure was pulled down on 6 December 1992, a shilalekha (inscription) was found in the Nagari script, which stated that King Govind Chand of Kanauj built and dedicated a temple of unparalleled beauty to Vishnu Hari, who had slain Bali and Dashanan (Ravana). This clearly indicated that the temple was a Ram temple, as Rama alone killed Ravana.
But the most significant aspect of the ASI dig was the finding of human habitation at Ayodhya from 1500 BC, which is seven hundred years earlier than previously thought. The Ayodhya excavation thus settled the controversy about the antiquity of the Ramayana vis-à-vis the Mahabharata, and vindicated the Hindu practice of preserving history through civilizational memory. My question is whether this memory of the Prince of Ayodhya legitimately deserves to be honoured with a place in history books or consigned to oblivion as an expression of Hindu communalism?
Of course, our Marxist friends have had no compunctions in shocking young school students with the claim that our Vedic ancestors, particularly the wily Brahmins, were voracious eaters of cow meat. Undeterred by inconvenient facts like the veneration of the cow in the Vedas and the prohibition on its slaughter, they have continued to perpetuate a colonial falsehood that was invented to facilitate the conversion agenda of Christian missionaries. Discerning readers would have realized that the sudden vehemence with which Marxists are now propagating that Vedic Hindus ate beef is nothing but a crude attempt to de-sacralize the cow and assist the conversion agenda of evangelizing faiths.
Finally, we come to what Prof. Shiva G. Bajpai of Wisconsin University calls “the burden of bad ideas.” In October last year, an international academic consensus at California State University, CA, USA, stated that there was no Aryan Invasion of India. Hindu civilizational memory always maintained that its spiritual-cultural tradition began with the Vedas centred round the region of the river Saraswati. For Hindus, ‘Arya’ simply meant ‘noble,’ and denoted adherence to an elevated culture; it had no ethnic connotations. Though evidence of an Aryan Invasion was always slim, Sir William James floated the theory was to establish that India was a land that passively submitted to successive foreign rule and conquest; that its great Vedic civilization was itself an alien graft; and that British rule was merely the last of such a sequence.
Normally, such a view should have been scrapped once the British departed and subsequent excavations established that the geo-cultural areas of the Harappan and Vedic cultures were historically overlapping and identical. But Indian Marxists and Islamic intellectuals (the two often overlapped) joined hands and secured patronage to propound the view that the builders of the Harappan civilization and the composers of the Vedic hymns were different people.
The idea, of course, was to deny the indigenous origins of Hindu civilization long after it had become impossible to sustain this myth. The objective was to place Arab-Turk-Afghan invasions in “perspective” as a recurrent theme in Indian history, somewhat like the annual floods in the Brahmaputra. We thus have the ultimate irony that the organizers of the California conference are writing to school textbook writers all over the world to ensure that future writings on Indian history assert that there was no Aryan Invasion of India. NCERT has also received such a letter; one shudders to think what its new political masters intend to do with it.
End of Matter
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
