One of the first
important nominations by the Narendra Modi government is the appointment of the
retired History professor, Yellapragada Sudershan Rao, as head of the Indian
Council of Historical Research. As I could see from spontaneous comments
appearing in my mailbox, Hindu-minded historians and intellectuals tend to be
very disappointed by this. To them, this nomination amounts to the waste of a beautiful
and rare opportunity to achieve an overhaul of the apparently never-ending
Marxist dominance in the sectors concerned with Indian history. They consider
Rao unfit for the job: too old to provide the dynamic leadership that is needed
to affect real change (the RSS gerontocrats clearly wanted to reward one of
their own kind), and especially, too associated with the caricature version of
“rewriting Indian history”.
By contrast, in
secularist and other anti-Hindu circles, the joy is palpable though strategically
silent. They feign indignation at Yellapragada’s appointment but among
themselves they are elated, for they too consider him incompetent and likely to
expose the whole idea of “Hindu history” to ridicule. Once more they
congratulate themselves on an impending Hindu misadventure in history-rewriting,
as if concluding: “Hindu activists are unspeakably evil, but fortunately, they
are also abysmally stupid.” Let us read a typical secularist reaction, viz. an
article by Shoaib Daniyal: “Five things Hindutva historians are obsessed with” (scroll.in, 6 July 2014) (http://scroll.in/article/669435/Five-things-Hindutva-historians-are-obsessed-with).
Politicized history
He notes that “the new head of the Indian
Council for Historical Research wants to re-examine established notions about
the country's history”. So far, so good, for it is the most normal thing in the
world for a historian to take a new look at established accounts and the
underlying data. But then he notes that Yellapragada “is also president
of the Sangh Parivar-affiliated Bharateeya
Itihaasa Sankalana Samithi, an
organisation that seeks to write history from an Indian nationalist perspective
from ‘the beginning of kaliyuga onwards’.” This implies the chronology of the
event that traditionally signaled the transition from Dwapara Yuga to Kaliyuga,
viz. the death of Krishna Vasudeva and the preceding war described in the
Mahabharata epic. Again, this is a legitimate object of research, investigated
by many historians, philologists and archeao-astronomers. What Yellapragada has
made of it, however, with what Daniyal calls his “literalist interpretation”,
is part of the reason for the Hindu criticism of his appointment.
One could study the Mahabharata as a product of history. It could be
read as having different layers, which in this case is admitted by the work
itself: it had by its own account started as a core narrative (Jaya, “Victory”), then expanded (Bhārata, “Bharata’s clan”), and then
expanded to its present form (Mahābhārata,
“Great [epic] of Bharata’s clan”). And certainly its redaction history is even
more complex than that. Many philosophical chapters have been inserted into it,
sometimes adapted to its narrative structure, most famously the Bhagavad-Gita.
However, one could also read it as an unchangeable, forever perfect revelation.
This is rather common among Hindus, but obviously doesn’t fit someone with a
vocation as historian.
So, there is reason to fear a “politicization of history”. In Daniyal’s
assessment: “This was inevitable. Politics has always used history as a tool
and agent.” Right on, Shoaib. The secularist regime, in power for more than
half a century, has distorted history very thoroughly to serve its own political
vision. (I don’t need to say it, Daniyal already implies as much himself.)
There is now, naturally, a crying need to set the record straight and remedy
these distortions.
But the BJP does not have a good record in this regard. In ca. 2002, it
tried to achieve an overhaul of the history textbooks officially recommended to
the Indian schools, but only managed to cover itself in ridicule. The textbook
reform became a horror show of incompetence. The best of the textbooks,
probably the only one up to standard, was by Dr. Meenakshi Jain, therefore also
the main attractor of specious secularist criticisms, as the other textbooks
were already considered as rendered harmless by ridicule.
Naturally, Daniyal is happy to remind the readers of the episode: “The
move is reminiscent of the appointment of Murli Manohar Joshi as human
resources development minister in Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s Bharatiya Janata Party
government. Joshi made a number of appointments in crucial academic positions
that were criticised by academic historians at the time as attempts to
saffronise the curriculum and position Hindu scriptural dicta as academic
thought.” Well, nothing came of it. On the one hand, the BJP tried to appease
the secularists by appointing secularists, even proven enemies of the BJP, to
posts with high visibility (but were of course never rewarded with compliments
for being oh so secular). On the other, they promoted a fanciful
history-rewriting, which ended up only embarrassing them. This time around, a
similar scenario is likely to unfold, to the great joy of the secularists.
“The Medieval Period as India’s Dark Ages”
So, Daniyal promises us to take a look at “five areas where Hindutva
historians have sought to rewrite accepted histories”. As we shall see, in some
of these areas, the “Hindutva historians” merely restore what was a matter of
consensus a century ago, and it is the secularists who have done their own
rewriting, at variance with both the old consensus and the primary sources.
Anyway, here goes.
“When prime minister Narendra Modi mentioned India’s ‘slave mentality of
1,200 years’ in the Lok Sabha, he was asserting that it was not only during the 200
years of British dominion that Indians were enslaved, but in the preceding
1,000 years of Muslim-rule as well.” So Daniyal is now going to prove that
Muslim rule was neither oppressive nor foreign.
“Indian historiography does not consider the medieval period foreign rule, primarily because the Muslim kings engaged with Indian culture meaningfully as they ruled, and were not economically extractionary like the British colonists. Historians associated with the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh have long sought to challenge this, painting the years of Muslim rule as foreign.”
Did Jadunath Sarkar consider Muslim rule native? Did he ignore its
exploitative aspects? It is not “Indian historiography” that denied the Sultans’
foreign origin, foreign language and foreign religion, it is only the Marxists who
have lorded it over the cultural and educational sectors the past few decades.
The Sultans were very extractionary, both through the toleration tax and
through the land tax, but most of those who conquered India from abroad soon
lost their home base. They invested lots of Indian tax money in trying to
recover their Central Asian homeland, which generally did not succeed, but
proved their foreign orientation. Only the first Muslim regime was a colonial
state with an enduring foreign base: Mohammed bin Qasin, who conquered Sindh in
712, was Viceroy of the Caliphate based in Damascus. The British were exploitative,
to be sure, but next to their brutal exploitation, they also gave much in
return, from modern democracy to the rediscovery of the Sankrit textual
tradition. No Muslim ruler can take any such credit. In that sense, not the
thorns but the roses of colonialism, Muslim rule was indeed not a colonial
system.
Not just “historians associated with the RSS”, but anyone who can read
primary sources, can see that the Muslims saw themselves as foreign occupiers.
To tell their syrupy stories, the reigning secularists have to keep the primary
sources out of view. But people like Daniyal have an interest in identifying a dissident
view of history with the RSS,-- the same interest that the RSS has. Both want
to keep the objective view, cultivated by some Hindu and foreign historians as
their only salvation, out of view, and pretend that only the RSS thwarts the
total dominance of the secularists. The RSS wants to aggrandize itself as the
only representative of the Hindus, and the secularist establishment wants to
render any challenge to their distorted version of history suspect by its
association with the ill-reputed RSS. The RSS and the secularists are strange bedfellows.
“In January, Hindutva adherents on Twitter created a furore over Tipu Sultan being featured on Karnataka’s Republic Day float. A number of Indian historians have championed Sultan as one of the few kings who refused to submit to England’s military advantage.” Tipu Sultan was a persecutor of the non-believers, as he himself and many other contemporary sources testify. His opposition to the English only meant that he was allied with the French. Both were colonial powers, and it was by no means settled that England and not France would rule India. He was by no means a nationalist or freedom-fighter. But the secularists are powerful enough to let their own false version of history pass as the official one.
“An extreme version of the efforts to delegitimise rulers of this age is found in the works of historian PN Oak (quoted often by a member of the BJP, Subramanian Swamy). Oak claims that the Taj Mahal was once a Shiva temple named ‘Tejo Mahalaya’ that the Mughals simply took over, changing the name slightly.” P.N. Oak was not a historian, though indeed far too many Hindus call him that – and secularists, as you can see right here. Oak’s popular but nonsensical version of history is an embarrassment for genuine Hindu historians. Ramesh Chandra Majumdar, Sita Ram Goel and myself repeatedly wrote against his stories and the damage he was doing to the cause of genuine history. Secularists, by contrast, promote him all they can. Thus, after only one page, Daniyal himself has not mentioned qualified and productive historians like Majumdar and Goel, but he has already smuggled in Oak, who actually remains the only Hindu "historian" mentioned throughout this article. Secularists are past masters at deviousness, and most Hindus are too naïve to see through their game.
“In January, Hindutva adherents on Twitter created a furore over Tipu Sultan being featured on Karnataka’s Republic Day float. A number of Indian historians have championed Sultan as one of the few kings who refused to submit to England’s military advantage.” Tipu Sultan was a persecutor of the non-believers, as he himself and many other contemporary sources testify. His opposition to the English only meant that he was allied with the French. Both were colonial powers, and it was by no means settled that England and not France would rule India. He was by no means a nationalist or freedom-fighter. But the secularists are powerful enough to let their own false version of history pass as the official one.
“An extreme version of the efforts to delegitimise rulers of this age is found in the works of historian PN Oak (quoted often by a member of the BJP, Subramanian Swamy). Oak claims that the Taj Mahal was once a Shiva temple named ‘Tejo Mahalaya’ that the Mughals simply took over, changing the name slightly.” P.N. Oak was not a historian, though indeed far too many Hindus call him that – and secularists, as you can see right here. Oak’s popular but nonsensical version of history is an embarrassment for genuine Hindu historians. Ramesh Chandra Majumdar, Sita Ram Goel and myself repeatedly wrote against his stories and the damage he was doing to the cause of genuine history. Secularists, by contrast, promote him all they can. Thus, after only one page, Daniyal himself has not mentioned qualified and productive historians like Majumdar and Goel, but he has already smuggled in Oak, who actually remains the only Hindu "historian" mentioned throughout this article. Secularists are past masters at deviousness, and most Hindus are too naïve to see through their game.
The Golden Hindu Age
“Looking past the many advances India made in the medieval period,
Hindutva historians often look to ancient India for a sense of historical
sustenance.” Which are these “many advances”? I don’t know of any, but I know
that the Muslims destroyed the universities, razed thousands of temples,
destroyed many social institutions, destroyed the freedom of millions by
keeping or exporting them as slaves.
Anyway, Daniyal has a point when he observes: “Ironically, the preferred
morality of the RSS is modeled more on 19th-century European sensibilities than
the mores prevalent in ancient India.” Yes, the RSS is all for the suppression
of carefree or alternative forms of sexuality and of free speech, and this does
indeed follow laws imposed by the Victorian British on the Hindus precisely
because these lacked such laws. However, the following line is only part of the
truth: “Historians such as DN Jha, who have showed that some people in ancient
India ate beef, are therefore attacked.” To say this just after Arun Shourie
has highlighted the fraud which DN Jha committed when he was ICHR chairman in
2004, is essentially a rehabilitation. When all eyes are on the lies propagated
by the “eminent historians”, and the central question of Daniyal’s article
ought to be how the new ICHR appointee is going to clean up this Augian stable,
it is simply a tactic of misdirection to launch this tirade about
cow-slaughter.
“In an interview with the Telegraph, Rao bluntly confirms that his aim is to ‘rewrite ancient history’.” Well, if history has been controlled for decades by shameless history distorters, it is only to be hoped that he will rewrite history. When Marxist power came crashing down in the Soviet bloc in 1989-90, the history textbooks were also rewritten, and quite justifiably. What is to be feared, however, is that by “rewriting history”, the new chairman has a PN Oak caricature in mind. This will prove unsustainable and will certainly lead to another defeat, like the preceding BJP government’s attempt, and like the California textbook debacle.
Scholarship around Hinduism
“In an interview with the Telegraph, Rao bluntly confirms that his aim is to ‘rewrite ancient history’.” Well, if history has been controlled for decades by shameless history distorters, it is only to be hoped that he will rewrite history. When Marxist power came crashing down in the Soviet bloc in 1989-90, the history textbooks were also rewritten, and quite justifiably. What is to be feared, however, is that by “rewriting history”, the new chairman has a PN Oak caricature in mind. This will prove unsustainable and will certainly lead to another defeat, like the preceding BJP government’s attempt, and like the California textbook debacle.
Scholarship around Hinduism
“Religious history, in itself, is a useful field given how society is
shaped by faith. Archaeologists like BB Lal and SR Rao have even sought to
determine the truth of events related in the Mahabharata through their
research. Unfortunately, much of this work has been literalist in approach,
reminiscent of the Biblical archaeology movement.” I wholeheartedly share this
concern. My mailbox is regularly flooded by Hindu history-rewriters who want to
prove some point of ancient history and use a text passage as “evidence”. Gullible
Hindus are indeed the Hindu historians’ worst enemies; which is why they are
secretly encouraged by the secularists.
“This perception is reinforced by the treatment that Wendy Doniger’s
work on Hinduism has received. Dinanath Batra, the senior RSS member who
ensured Doniger’s publishers pulped her book, advised the previous BJP
government on education policy.” Long before Doniger’s book was pulped, an
event which the secularists have eagerly highlighted, her book was replied to
in detail by Vishal Agarwal, a successful medical engineer and Sankrit teacher.
He showed that she was either wrong or unmistakably biased in hundreds of passages.
For a lifelong tenant of a very prestigious Indology chair, it is shameful that
she could deliver such substandard work. But the fact that her work was
anything but scholarly, has been carefully hidden by the secularists, including
in the present article. Yet the fact that such a bad book was universally
applauded and even earmarked for an Indian award, tells you a lot about the
power equation, with the anti-Hindu forces jubilantly on top. That is a more
valid news item than the senile RSS leadership’s invocation of a British
censorship law originally enacted to prevent the Arya Samaj from criticizing
Islam.
Out-of-India Theory
“Hindutva historians such as the Belgian Indologist Koenraad Elst
explain the linguistic links between India and Europe through a theory in which
Europeans are the modern descendants of people who migrated out of India,
spreading their language in the process. This is crucial given how Hinduism is
defined as completely indigenous to India by the RSS. But this theory has
little credibility in linguistics and historical research. The Kurgan
Hypothesis (or the Aryan Migration Theory) is the mostly [sic] widely-accepted model.”
Dr. Koenraad Elst, the undersigned, is by no means a “Hindutva historian”.
Daniyal would have known that if he had cared to read books of mine such as BJP vs. Hindu Resurgence or Decolonizing the Hindu Mind. In those, I
criticize the organized Hindu movement. The difference with Daniyal is, in all
modesty, that I happen to know what I am writing about, while he doesn’t. To be
sure, he doesn’t need to do the research I have done. He can just parrot the
conventional wisdom mouthed by the secularists, this will get him a lot farther
in life.
As for the Aryan Invasion Theory,
which in every variant boils down to an invasion scenario (though its fashion-conscious
camp-followers prefer the weasel word Migration),
it is sub judice, or at least, it is
the object of a debate. That the Russia-centred “Kurgan Hypothesis is the [most]
widely-accepted model”, may over-awe the common bourgeoisie as well as
conformist academics, but carries little weight with real scholars. Every new
theory started out in opposition against the established position. So, on the
Aryan question, the evidence will have to decide.
Meanwhile, the AIT has been far more associated with politics than any
Out-of-India Theory. From British colonialism over National-Socialism to
Dravidianism and neo-Ambedkarism, it has been politically used in far more
countries, for a far longer time, and not by a handful of marginal scholars but
by governments and by elites wielding political and cultural power. Indeed, if
the AIT didn’t enjoy the premium of its association with power and status, I
don’t think Daniyal would be supporting it. Like most secularists, he doesn’t
have a clue about this intricate question and merely makes whatever the
establishment says into his own “opinion”.
Re-interpreting the Freedom Movement
“Though each period of Indian history has become a source of contest,
the freedom movement is possibly the most politicised segment of Indian
history. The Congress has its own band of historians who have interpreted the
period as per its needs. Surprisingly, the BJP agenda here is the least
contentious and comprises what are basically petty turf wars involving
individuals.
When the BJP was last in power, bitter squabbles arose over whether Hindutva ideologue Veer Savarkar’s picture should go up in Parliament or not. Nehru – a fond target of the Hindutva right – will probably come under more attack, and his more conservative contemporary Vallabhbhai Patel will be championed.”
When the BJP was last in power, bitter squabbles arose over whether Hindutva ideologue Veer Savarkar’s picture should go up in Parliament or not. Nehru – a fond target of the Hindutva right – will probably come under more attack, and his more conservative contemporary Vallabhbhai Patel will be championed.”
I agree with these observations. Obviously, after sixty or so years of
Congress distortion of its own role during the British period, any new
government would have to correct the resulting warped history. Both Congress
and the RSS Parivar were spawned by the Freedom Movement, and both profess
forms of “nationalism”. In this regard, the two are not all that different.
Congress has of course exaggerated and whitewashed Mahatma Gandhi’s role, and a
handful of Hindu historians take a very critical stand on Gandhi, but don’t
expect the BJP will seriously intervene in the image of the Mahatma which the
younger generations are fed. Gandhi’s murder by an ex-RSS-volunteer makes the
subject too touchy, and the RSS always avoids difficult subjects.
A word of caution: “Yet, even as the RSS makes strenuous efforts to refashion history to suit its own needs, it must be pointed out to anybody excessively alarmed (or pleased) by this, that official histories have a pretty small role to play in today’s world. For example, the current set of history textbooks published by the National Council for Educational Research and Training are truly well-written, with little political interference and featuring the latest research. Most politically aware Indians, though, simply ignore them and pick such history off the Internet, that best fits their preconceived notions.” I don’t think they are all that well-written, but let that pass. They only got their chance because the preceding BJP textbooks were a failure. At any rate, it is true that the information landscape has drastically changed. And the RSS is not known for quick adaptations to changes.
“Moreover, most of the primary research is now done outside India. More academics in India seem to be keeping away from the hard grind of primary-source research, an attitude that American Sanskrit scholar Sheldon Pollock has described as ‘cultural genocide’. That, perhaps, is something we should be worrying about more.”
The world outside
India certainly deserves our attention. It is safely in the pocket of the
secularists, who control the bottleneck of the information flow from India to
the rest of the world. Most foreign India-watchers don’t even know that they
are being manipulated, others gladly collaborate with every secularist
distortion. We might comment on Pollock’s place in this power equation, but we
very much concur with his appreciation of India’s forgetfulness concerning its
own heritage. Every talented young Indian seeks to become a doctor or engineer,
and only the remainder enters the Humanities, which are also neglected by the
political class. It is not clear that the Narendra Modi government or its new ICHR
appointee plan to do anything about this.A word of caution: “Yet, even as the RSS makes strenuous efforts to refashion history to suit its own needs, it must be pointed out to anybody excessively alarmed (or pleased) by this, that official histories have a pretty small role to play in today’s world. For example, the current set of history textbooks published by the National Council for Educational Research and Training are truly well-written, with little political interference and featuring the latest research. Most politically aware Indians, though, simply ignore them and pick such history off the Internet, that best fits their preconceived notions.” I don’t think they are all that well-written, but let that pass. They only got their chance because the preceding BJP textbooks were a failure. At any rate, it is true that the information landscape has drastically changed. And the RSS is not known for quick adaptations to changes.
“Moreover, most of the primary research is now done outside India. More academics in India seem to be keeping away from the hard grind of primary-source research, an attitude that American Sanskrit scholar Sheldon Pollock has described as ‘cultural genocide’. That, perhaps, is something we should be worrying about more.”
9 comments:
It's interesting to note that scroll.in site doesn't even offer a feedback or comments section to go with its articles. You can only send a private feedback which they wouldn't publish. Apparently, Daniyal and his ilk don't like to be corrected.
Dear Konraad, there are many intellectuals in India !
Hitherto, it would seem that any researcher in History, who did not confirm to official marxist version of historiography would not progress very far in his scholarship. To the extent I have seen history research papers published in Karnataka, every single writing, barring that of Dr.M.Chidananda Murthy has leftist leaning. Little wonder that alternative schools of historiography hasn't developed in India. Of course, it is a big question as to whether tired and retired people like Prof.Sudarahan Rao have the will power or intellectual stamina to encourage such change in intellectual orientation.
One look a the manner in which the Tibetan monastic order has played it's hand at reviving their culture is enough to encounter the quality of Hindu revival.
People can hardly crib anymore that money is a problem...look at the rich but tacky ashrams & confused tamasha that often surrounds such happenings.
have these people invested in libraries, local aesthetics and the quiet dignity,silence & deep thought that define spirituality.
what is the point of pouring pages into the abuse of Missionaries (mostly Christian),they have made certain things work in this same country. So far it was a question of big money but aren't many of these spiritual gurus rich.
Look at the stark raw beauty of the Kedarnath temple and compare it with today's Hindu revival.Sad!
Contrary to what Koenraad Elst has said elsewhere, Modi has been softened by the relentless secularist antagonism he has faced. He is more keen to refurbish his image of 'vikas purush' and will stay focused on efficient governance, while staying clear of contentious or touchy subjects. This is going to be his template of governance and is similar to what he followed in Gujarat. Those who wish to fight the entrenched secularist order will need to do so without banking on the BJP govt.
Everybody in the truth movement around the world are researching TARTARIA. Arquitecture in india as well as many parts of the world seems to have a Tartarian influence..... (free energy probably?) Freemansonry has controlled Archeology around the world, working under the UNESCO lies to obscure the true history of the whole world.
There is also a probable cover up regarding places like Elora caves where there is evidence of plastering the walls to support the Carved from rock Hipothesis.
Post a Comment