Hinduism is the heritage of Hindus, not their fiefdom, says Mohan Bhagwat – IBN & ENS

Ansari & Bhagwat

Encyclopedia of Hinduism“It is true that Hinduism emanated from Hindustan and evolved further here but people of the country have never considered it as their fiefdom and have only considered it as their heritage, which is meant for the world” – Mohan Bhagwat

Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh chief Mohan Bhagwat said people of India have not treated Hinduism as their fiefdom but as their heritage meant for the world and there is a greater need for people in the country to have knowledge of its roots than those abroad.

Speaking at a function for the launch of the international edition of “Encyclopaedia of Hinduism” at Vigyan Bhawan in the national capital, he said that it is important to give information to children about their roots as this is currently missing from their education and learning system.

“The word Hindu was not there before. The tradition and religion was there but the word itself was not there. It was then known as humanity.

“It is true that Hinduism emanated from Hindustan and evolved further here but people of the country have never considered it as their fiefdom and have only considered it as their heritage, which is meant for the world,” he said.

“There is a greater need for people in the country to have knowledge of Hinduism than those abroad…. We need to provide knowledge about our roots to our children as the same is not made available in education and neither by their parents,” Bhagwat said.

The RSS chief noted that people related religion to rituals and that was the reason why today’s problems have cropped up and asserted that what is right in principle has to be practically correct also as per Hindu religion. – IBN Live, 11 October 2014

Swami Chidanand Saraswati“The wisdom, truths, teachings and insights of Indian and Hindu culture are not limited to only Hindus or Indians. Rather they belong to the world and can deeply benefit the world.” – Swami Chidanand 

Vice-President Hamid Ansari, RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat, HRD Minister Smriti Irani, prominent Islamic leaders and a Bollywood actor — they all came under one roof on Friday to launch the international edition of Encyclopedia of Hinduism.

The key message from the function was Hinduism is a global legacy, with Bhagwat saying that it is not an “ancestral property” of Indians, but it is for everyone.

“Religion always unites and what divides people is not religion,” he said. Interpreting the word “dharm”, the RSS chief said it has a wider meaning than “religion”.

According to Bhagwat, the Encyclopedia on Hinduism, a project of India Heritage Research Foundation, would help Hindus as well as Indians answer the questions asked about the religion to the next generation and the outside world.

Swami Chidanand Saraswati, the founder chairman of the IHRF and spiritual head of the Parmarth Niketan in Rishikesh, stressed that no one can stake claim on Hindu religion. “The wisdom, truths, teachings and insights of Indian and the Hindu culture are not limited to only Hindus or Indians. Rather they belong to the world and can deeply benefit the world,” he said.

Imam Umer Ahmed IlyasiAjmer Sharif Dargah Diwan Zainul Abedin Ali KhanImam Umer Ahmed Ilyasi, president All India Imams Organisation, and Dewan Syed Zainul Abedin Ali Khan, Ajmer Dargah Sharif, said Hinduism is an “assimilative” religion.

Vice-President Ansari, the chief guest at the function, spoke on the history of encyclopaedias. “Available evidence shows that the encyclopaedia ‘industry’ is now flourishing. One count puts the figure of these in the market at anything between six and ten thousand. At this rate, there may even be a need for an encyclopaedia of encyclopaedias,” Ansari said. – Express News Service, 11 October 2013

Delhi University initiates project to prove Aryans were not foreigners – Ritika Chopra


Ritika Chopra“‘There are two schools of thought as far as the origin of the Indo-Aryans is concerned. We want to collate archaeological and new scientific evidence along with the Sanskrit department’s own research of ancient manuscripts and texts to prove that Indian culture was not a foreign import. … In fact, the Aryans belonged to the subcontinent and migrated from here and influenced cultures abroad,’ said Bharadwaj, who argued that the [Aryans were indigenous].” – Ritika Chopra

Delhi University Arts FacultyDelhi University to study India’s past

Delhi University’s Sanskrit department has thrown its weight behind a project that could possibly rewrite history to fit the Sangh Parivar’s view of India’s past, a move that’s likely to gain political colour considering the resounding victory of the Narendra Modi-led Bharatiya Janata Party in the general election.

Here’s what most history books tell us: first there was the Indus Valley Civilization that flourished in places such as Mohenjo-Daro and Harappa. Then, around 3,500 years ago, this went into decline as the Aryan nomadic tribes crossed the mountains and entered India.

But the Hindu nationalist narrative, as espoused by the Sangh Parivar and its affiliates, disputes what they call a European-imposed narrative. They say the Aryans were an indigenous people not migrants.

Prof. Ramesh C. BhardwajThe project was announced last week by Delhi University’s Sanskrit department in the presence of O.P. Kohli — a BJP leader recently appointed Gujarat governor — and vice-chancellor Dinesh Singh at an event marking 60 years of Sanskrit research. Sanskrit department head Ramesh Bharadwaj strongly denied that this was an attempt to validate a particular party line and that he was only interested in putting forward a convincing academic argument. Singh for his part has come under intense criticism for implementing a four-degree undergraduate programme that’s been withdrawn after the new government was formed.

The project is unlikely to find the support of the university’s history department. “This is a meaningless debate. We all now know that the entire human race can trace its ancestry back to Africa. So how does it matter whether Aryans were indigenous to our country or were outsiders? There are far more serious issues of archaeological and scientific research that need to addressed in our country,” said Nayanjot Lahiri, a professor of archaeology in the history department at Delhi University.

There’s no evidence to back the claim, said renowned historian D.N. Jha, who specialises in ancient and medieval Indian history.

Human migration out of Africa to India and then to Europe.“This debate is not new, but I can say that at present there is no scientific evidence to prove that Indo-Aryans were indigenous to our subcontinent. But since the political ambience in the country has changed, there will be many such attempts to prove this,” said Jha, who used to be a Delhi University professor. “I have no comment to offer except that a serious historian will only dismiss such research. Moreover, the Sanskrit department of Delhi University is not at all competent to go into such questions.”

The idea is to disprove the Aryan migration theory, proposed by German linguist and Sanskrit scholar Max Mueller, using scientific facts.

“There are two schools of thought as far as the origin of the Indo-Aryans is concerned. We want to collate archaeological and new scientific evidence along with the Sanskrit department’s own research of ancient manuscripts and texts to prove that Indian culture was not a foreign import,” said Prof. Bharadwaj, who argued that the opposite was true.

“In fact, the Aryans belonged to the subcontinent and migrated from here and influenced cultures abroad,” he said.

The last NDA government had made an attempt to disprove the Aryan migration theory by changing the history textbooks in 2004, the year in which it lost the general election. Human resource development ministry officials declined to comment on the matter.

Prof Yellapragada Sudershan RaoThe Sanskrit department will soon seek the help of Y.S. Rao, recently appointed head of the Indian Council of Historical Research (ICHR) by the BJP government, to collate historical evidence. Rao did not respond to ET’s calls and emails. Rao is a controversial figure, having once written in support of the caste system besides blaming Muslim rule for India’s social ills.

His stand on a strongly divisive issue was made clear by his support for the contention that the Babri Masjid was built on the site of a temple. Nationalistic scholars have argued that there are several linguistic, archaeological, literary and, more recently, genetic pieces of evidence to support the belief that Aryans originated in the Indian subcontinent. The issue was one of the most hotly contested debates in Western and Indian academic circles throughout the 1990s.

Bharadwaj pointed to the pattern of similarities between ancient Sanskrit words and ancient words in classical Western languages as one of the linguistic examples of Indian influence on cultures abroad.

He also cited similarities between the architecture and culture of the Indus Valley Civilization and Mesopotamian Civilisation, the latter considered the cradle of civilization in the west.

As for genetic evidence, a study published by scientists from the Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology in Hyderabad said that the origin of genetic diversity found in South Asia is much older than 3,500 years, when the Indo-Aryans were said to have begun migrating to India.

Aryan Migration TheoryThe study had appeared in the American Journal of Human Genetics in 2011. “Many phonetic laws of French language are the same as the one formulated by ancient Sanskrit grammarian Panini. The German language is also similar to Sanskrit.

So when there is so much evidence in favour of our view, then there must be an effort to bring some finality to this debate. Why should we continue teaching the European theory to our children?” Bharadwaj said.

According to Bharadwaj, the Sanskrit department will start holding workshops with different scholars in January next year in pursuit of its project. – Economic Times, 30 September 2014

» Ritika Chopra is a correspondent  with the Economic Times in New Delhi. She tweets at https://twitter.com/KhurafatiChopra

Book Review: Meenakshi Jain’s definitive Ayodhya chronicle – Koenraad Elst

Dr. Koenraad Elst“Another chapter gives an exhaustive enumeration of all the testimonies … for the tradition that the Babri mosque had replaced a Hindu temple. It includes pre-colonial European testimonies as well as reports by colonial officers, but most numerous are the testimonies by local Muslims. It also cites the verdicts and internal correspondence of the magistrates, and some statements by politicians. They all prove that until the 1980s, it was a matter of consensus that the Babri mosque had been built in forcible replacement of a Hindu temple.” – Dr Koenraad Elst

Rama & Ayodhya by Meenakshi JainThere are very few publications giving a factual account of historical facts underlying the Ayodhya controversy. Yet this controversy has played a decisive role in recent Indian politics, giving the BJP the electoral breakthrough that ultimately brought it to power. Therefore, it ought to be a matter for surprise that the professional India-watchers and the academics concerned remain satisfied with the handful of very partial and highly partisan treatments available in print. But the prevailing poverty of information on at least the factual basis of the affair has now been remedied. This book Rama & Ayodhya by Dr. Meenakshi Jain (Aryan Books International, New Delhi 2013) will henceforth be required reading for anyone pronouncing on Ayodhya.>

Dr. Meenakshi Jain is a historian formerly with the Nehru Memorial Library, presently Associate Professor in History at Gargi College, University of Delhi. In this book she gives a very detailed enumeration of all the sources of a pre-Muslim veneration for the cult of Rama: inscriptions, sculptures and literary references. These already start in the pre-Christian age and soon cover all of India. Yet, the Marxist historians started the Ayodhya controversy in the late 1980s by claiming that there could not have been a pre-Muslim Rama temple in Ayodhya as Rama worship is of more recent vintage. This chapter concurs with the testimonies to Rama worship of the historians employed by the Vishva Hindu Parishad in the Government-sponsored scholars’ debate of 1990-91, except that it is far more complete.

Highly original is the chapter on Hindu testimonies of Muslim iconoclasm and the counter-measures which Hindu society took to prevent or remedy instances of iconoclasm. Particularly under Maratha rule, Hindu ownership of Muslim-occupied places was often restored. But this process was not easy and even in the Maratha domains far from complete. Often there was a factual Maratha but a nominal Moghul sovereignty to which lip-service had to be paid. Sometimes also, the local Brahmins were so fearful of a Muslim return to power that they preferred whatever humiliating makeshift arrangement they had negotiated to a full restoration of the erstwhile Hindu temple. Often idols were dug up from their shelters in the ground and rituals were prescribed in the event of their restoration. These testimonies supplement the Muslim testimonies of iconoclasm presented by Sita Ram Goel in his epoch-making book Hindu Temples: What Happened to Them. Significantly, the “eminent historians” do not touch the subject with a barge pole.

Babri Masjid, AyodhyaAnother chapter gives an exhaustive enumeration of all the testimonies, including statements made in court, for the tradition that the Babri mosque had replaced a Hindu temple. Here again, many instances will sound familiar to those who have closely followed the debate, but the list stands out by its completeness. It includes pre-colonial European testimonies as well as reports by colonial officers, but most numerous are the testimonies by local Muslims. It also cites the verdicts and internal correspondence of the magistrates, and some statements by politicians. They all prove that until the 1980s, it was a matter of consensus that the Babri mosque had been built in forcible replacement of a Hindu temple. It was shared by all parties concerned: Hindus, Muslims, European travellers as well as British administrators and scholars. Yet, in a very sudden reversal, a statement by the “eminent historians” from JNU in 1989, a statement which already was questionable at the time and has been proven false since, managed to make practically all media and all Indian and foreign observers turn against the established consensus and present it as the “Hindu fundamentalist myth”. I am proud to say I was an exception. But now, that consensus has been restored, and unwilling secularists still denying and lambasting it are fighting a fruitless rearguard action.

An even more damaging part for the secularists is Meenakshi Jain’s presentation of their own testimonies in court.  For the first time, we get to see how one after another, the secular “experts” collapse or lose their credibility when subjected to cross-examination. One after another admits under oath that he or she has no experience with or no professional competence on the history or archaeology of Ayodhya. Their bluff was enough to fool the mass of secular politicians and gullible press correspondents, but failed to stand up to critical questioning. The Indologists who have invoked those “experts” as arguments of authority, can somewhat restore their lost honour by publicly naming and shaming them and by apologizing for following in their footsteps and ridiculing the old consensus – rather than, at best, looking away and pretending there never was an Ayodhya controversy in the first place; or, worse, still keeping up the false allegations that once swept the concerned public opinion across the globe.

The book also discusses related court cases, the strange fact that a deity can act as a juridical person (though, like a minor, it has to be represented by a fully empowered citizen), and the archaeological findings as well as the unsavoury controversy around these. Ultimately, they all turn out to support the old assumption that the Babri mosque was built on a demolished Hindu temple.

Sri RamaOne point I disagree with, is her seeming acceptance of the VHP thesis that the Babri mosque replaced a “magnificent” Rama temple.  Some temples which lay out of the way of the population centres and military routes failed to attract attention and thus survived; the famous temples of Khajuraho come to mind. But Ayodhya became a provincial capital of the Delhi Sultanate, and it is simply unthinkable that a sizable Hindu temple, a place of pilgrimage moreover, could have survived the Muslim conquest and occupation. This scenario denies the large-scale and systematic Islamic iconoclasm which could not have spared a major place of Hindu pilgrimage; a deluded secularist could have thought it up, but those who believed the VHP was anti-Islamic will be surprised to learn of the whitewash of Islam implicit in the thesis that a Rama temple could subsist for centuries in a centre of Sultanate power. More likely, Babar found an existing mosque on the spot, in dilapidated condition (as a consequence of the collapse of the pre-Moghul Lodi dynasty) or, like in the recent past, under Hindu occupation. Only because he restored it as a mosque has it been called the Babri mosque. Early in the Ayodhya debate already, a theory surfaced that the “Babri” mosque had been built in the preceding Sultanate period, as testified by its building style.

On closer inspection, this position is truthfully described in some detail on p. 292-4 as coming from the pro-temple archaeologist R. Nath as well as from the pro-Babri (and otherwise also disgraced) historian Sushil Srivastava, but without evaluation. In the preface (p. xvii), she only says that Babar “allegedly” destroyed the Rama Janmabhumi temple, so the reader cannot find anything wrong in her presentation of the controversy. At any rate, the mosque called Babri Masjid was certainly built after the demolition of a Hindu temple, but it is not sure that this was done by Babar. Not everything in this case is known, but the core of the matter, viz. that Islamic iconoclasm motivated by Prophet Mohammed’s precedent destroyed a major Hindu temple, has been firmly established.

This is henceforth the standard book on the Ayodhya affair. Any so-called expert who now fails to refer to it, is not to be taken seriously.

» Dr. Koenraad Elst was born in Leuven, Belgium into a Flemish (Dutch-speaking Belgian) Catholic family. He graduated in Philosophy, Chinese Studies and Indo-Iranian Studies at the Catholic University of Leuven. During a stay at the Benares Hindu University, he discovered India’s communal problem and wrote his first book about the budding Ayodhya conflict which was published by Voice of India.

Proposed Ram Temple for Ayodhya

See also

Muslim invasion created Dalits and tribals in India, says RSS – India Today

Vijay Sonkar Shastri's book release function at NDMC Convention centre on September 7, 2014 in New Delhi

Where did caste originate?“The RSS … has been actively promoting a rewriting of Indian history and has largely rejected the historiography pursued by professional [Marxist] historians, accusing them of being anti-Hindu. After the BJP’s victory in Lok Sabha polls in May … the RSS … has undertaken a decade-long project to produce a version of Indian history based on the Puranas.” – India Today

Vijay Sonkar ShastriThe BJP’s ideological mentor, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh has attributed the genesis of Dalits, tribals and other marginalised groups to Muslim invasion in medieval times.

Three RSS functionaries have reportedly expressed such views in forewords to three books – Hindu Charmakar Jati, Hindu Khatik Jati and Hindu Valmiki Jati – written by the BJP spokesman Vijay Sonkar Shastri and released recently by RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat.

In his foreword, Bhaiyyaji Joshi, Bhagat’s Number Two in the RSS pecking order, reportedly says the ‘shudras‘ were never untouchables according to the Hindu scriptures. It was only after the “Islamic atrocities” during the medieval times that the untouchables, Dalits and Indian Muslims emerged.

“To violate Hindu swabhiman (dignity) of Chanwarvanshiya Kshatriyas, foreign invaders from Arab, Muslim rulers and beef-eaters, forced them to do abominable works like killing cows, skinning them and throwing their carcasses in deserted places. Foreign invaders thus created a caste of charma-karma (dealing with skin) by giving such works as punishment to proud Hindu prisoners,” he writes.

Suresh Soni, another senior RSS leader, wrote, “Dalits had their genesis during Turks, Muslims and Mughal eras. Today’s castes like Valmikis, Sudarshan, Majhabi Sikhs and their 624 sub-castes came into being as a result of atrocities against Brahmins and Kshatriyas during Medieval or Islamic age.”

The third foreword by Krishna Gopal of the RSS says, “In pre-historic and Vedic age, Khatik castes have been recognized as Brahmins who affected sacrifices. It may be noted that before the advent of Muslim invaders, there is no reference to rearing pigs in India. It was a vocation adopted by Hindus to defend their religion.”

The RSS, that was founded in 1925, has been actively promoting a rewriting of Indian history and has largely rejected the historiography pursued by professional [Marxist] historians, accusing them of being anti-Hindu.

After the BJP’s victory in Lok Sabha polls in May, a bullish Sangh, as the RSS is also called, has undertaken a decade-long project to produce a version of Indian history based on the Puranas.

The RSS has also been accused of trying to influence the school and university curriculum through the Union Human Resources Ministry whenever the BJP has been in power. – India Today, 22 September 2014

Hindus forced to pay the jizya tax.

Battle for Indian History: How to fight it, and how not – Virendra Parekh

First War of Indian Independence (1857)

Virendra Parekh“Tampering with history can … undermine India’s self-image. A wrong perception of the past can obscure a clear view of the present. That indeed was the route taken, first by colonial masters, Christian missionaries and in recent decades by Leftists. Each of these groups had a direct political interest in moulding the way Indians looked upon themselves and others.” – Virendra Parek

R.C. Majumdar1 – A history in service of rulers

Indian history is a battlefield. Hindu nationalists fight off invading colonial canards and Marxist mumbo jumbo of materialistic interpretation of history. Secularists, alarmed by the saffron surge, sound shrill warnings against communalization of history writing. Stalinist activists masquerading as historians girdle up to resist intrusion of sundries (i.e. anyone outside their clique) onto their turf in media, academia and research institutions. Muslim scholars resist attempts to portray Islam and Muslims as villains. Academic historians raise their hands in despair at politicization of the past to serve current needs. And the new generation just wonders why there is so much fuss over an age that is dead and gone.

Indeed, why should it matter who writes history? The short answer is that for India history matters because it extends into the present. India’s history is hoary, chequered and continuous. The link between history writing and actual politics is extraordinarily strong here. Witness the critical role that the myths of Aryan invasion, Brahmanical persecution of Buddhism and Jainism and non-religious motives for temple destruction by Muslim conquerors play in the current political discourse. An unusually large part of India’s history has been disputed for political reasons even when well established e.g. denial of Islam’s utterly destructive role. It is impossible to make sense of the present— its complexities, problems, challenges, opportunities and possible solutions—without a proper understanding of the past.

There is another, deeper reason for Indians to learn and remember their past. India derives her sense of nationhood, her self-image, her identity from her ancient past. That past is kept alive and the sense of national unity sustained through a living tradition: Veda, Upanishads, Ramayana, Mahabharata, literature of saints, pilgrimages, modes of worships and rituals that are similar in substance though differing in details and a collective memory of foreign invasions and heroic resistance offered by national icons of valour and sacrifice. Unlike histories of Ancient Rome, Egypt or Mesopotamia, which survive only in museums and monuments, Indian history is a living presence in the lives of millions.

Tampering with history can, therefore, undermine India’s self-image. A wrong perception of the past can obscure a clear view of the present. That indeed was the route taken, first by colonial masters, Christian missionaries and in recent decades by Leftists. Each of these groups had a direct political interest in moulding the way Indians looked upon themselves and others. As in several other matters, enemies of Hinduism and Hindu society have a much clearer understanding of the stakes involved than the Hindus. The former, therefore, lead the assault and the latter try to defend themselves—usually in a bumbling, apologetic manner.

It is therefore important for us to remember that great many historians of India had their own reasons for distorting or suppressing facts. British historians, nationalist leaders of freedom struggle, Aligarh school of historians and Marxist activists passing for historians, all had some purpose other than presentation of colourless truth in their treatment of historical material. Their predilections have vastly compounded the complex task of writing an authentic history of an ancient civilization like India stretching over several millennia.

Nobody can say that all British history of India was wrong. While many British historians were prejudiced, some had genuine curiosity about a culture which was very different from their own. They applied modern methods of historiography to India. They collected, collated and compared old manuscripts, deciphered old, forgotten scripts and systematically mapped out historical monuments built over centuries by a variety of rulers and scattered over a large area. With this, they uncovered an important segment of India’s past which even Indians as a people had largely forgotten. Their labours established India as an ancient civilization with a glorious past, wide influence and remarkable continuity, rather than an area of darkness.

For all these positive factors, British historians distorted our history in some very important respects. They could never shed their sense of racial and cultural superiority. As rulers of a fast expanding empire, they had some definite political needs. For example, the subject people should have no higher notion of their past beyond their present status which they should accept without murmur, preferably with gratefulness. The British taught us that India had never been a nation but a conglomeration of miscellaneous people drawn from diverse sources, that its history had always been a history of invaders and conquerors, that Indians were indifferent to self-rule, and so long as their village life remained intact, they did not bother about who ruled at the Centre.

All these lessons were tirelessly taught and dutifully learnt. So much so that even after the British left, they form an important part of our mental make-up. How often do we hear that India is a multi-religious, multi-racial, multi-lingual and multi-cultural entity trying painfully to acquire some principle of unity! The very phrase ‘Indian sub-continent’ implies a subtle denial of the essential unity of India.

The Britishers’ main interest was to write a history which justified their presence in India. They held India by the right of conquest and had to recognise the legitimacy of this right in the case of their predecessors like the Arabs, Afghans and Mughals. Thus, British historians sought to justify the Muslim rule in India by presenting Mughals as empire builders and themselves as their successors. Hindu resistance to Muslim rule was played down by the British historians as rebellions and revolts by local chieftains against the legitimate central authority. In the process, they conferred on Muslim rulers a legitimacy that the latter had never enjoyed in the eyes of the Hindus. For Hindus, Muslim rule was as much as an alien imposition as the British, to be resisted as much as was permitted by the circumstances.

In a great irony, this view of India’s history came to be endorsed enthusiastically by nationalist leaders during the struggle for freedom against the British. In the vain hope of winning over Muslim support in the struggle for independence, nationalist leaders started rewriting the history of medieval times. Under their inspiration, Muslim rule became indigenous, Muslim rulers became national kings, and those who fought them were suitably downgraded. The great historian R C Majumdar tells us how, under this motivation, national leaders created an imaginary history with one of them even proclaiming that Hindus were not at all a subject race under Muslim rule, and how “these absurd notions, which would have been laughed at by leaders at the beginning of the 19th century passed current as history at the end of that century.” (Preface to Vol. VI of The History and Culture of Indian People)

The national leaders at the time of independence were quite content with the history written by the colonial rulers. For one, as Ram Swarup remarks, to throw off an intellectual and cultural yoke is far more difficult than to throw off a political yoke. More importantly, the notion that India had never been a nation, that it had not known any freedom or freedom struggle in the past enabled these leaders to exalt their status by claiming that they were the first nation builders, that they had led the first freedom struggle India had ever known and, indeed, India became free for the first time under their aegis.

The whitewashing and indigenization of the Muslim rule received a powerful boost from the “modernist” Muslim historians, particularly from the Aligarh Muslim University. Sired by late Mohammad Habib, this school said that the barbaric atrocities committed by the Turks should not be blamed on Islam. The wars in the medieval India should be treated purely as political wars waged by some states ruled by Muslim sultans against other states ruled by Hindu rajas. The Muslim sultans were interested in building an empire even as Hindu rajas were interested in expanding their kingdoms. It should not be held against Muslim sultans if the peculiar caste structure of Hindu society made them victorious most of the time, we are told.

S.L. BhyrappaOn the top of all this came in 1970s the communist ‘historians’ who converted history into a powerful assault on Hindu society, Hindu culture and Hindu Dharma. The noted Kannad literateur S L Bhyrappa has given us a first hand account of the beginning of massive rewriting and falsification of Indian history undertaken by Indira Gandhi government in the garb of national integration.

“During the year 1969-70 the Central Government under Mrs. Indira Gandhi established a committee under the Chairmanship of G Parthasarathy, a diplomat close to Nehru-Gandhi family. Its task was to integrate the nation through education. At that time I [i.e. Bhyrappa] was a reader in Educational Philosophy at NCERT and was selected as one of the five members of the committee. In our first meeting Mr. Parthasarathy, as Chairman of the committee, explained the purpose of our committee in typically diplomatic language: ‘It is our duty not to sow the seeds of thorns in the minds of the growing children which will grow up as barriers to national integration. Such thorns are found mostly in the history courses. Occasionally, we can find them in language and social science courses also. We have to weed them out. We have to include only such thoughts that go towards inculcating the concept of national integration firmly in the minds of our children. This committee carries this great responsibility.’” Mr. Bhyrappa saw through the game and opposed the proposal through cogent arguments. He was promptly dropped from the committee. (Distorting Indian History – I” by S L Bhyrappa) 

This was the genesis of the history books written by leftists, including NCERT text books. Since then, Stalinist activists masquerading as historians have deliberately and systematically distorted every period of our history to fit it into Marxist categories.

Indian history which is intellectually fashionable, politically correct and taught in schools and colleges comprises lies, half truths and distortions emanating from the all these sources. The result is predictable. It cannot stand even elementary scrutiny; it must rely on patronage and power to remain in currency, as we shall see.

Arun Shourie2 – Guidelines intended to misguide

British historians, nationalist leaders of freedom struggle, Aligarh school of historians and Marxist activists passing for historians, all had some purpose other than presentation of colourless truth in their treatment of historical material. Indian history which is intellectually fashionable, politically correct and taught in schools and colleges comprises lies, half-truths and distortions emanating from the all these sources.

The seed is contained in the NCERT guidelines for history books announced in 1982. These are full of recommendations for telling lies to our children, or for not telling them the truth at all. The guidelines say, quite commendably, that ‘the term Aryan cannot be used as a racial category’. However, the Aryan Invasion Theory, baseless and divisive as it is, is to be retained faithfully. The guidelines go on to say in the same breath that “historians have been told to stress the interaction between Aryan and non-Aryan cultures”. The division of ancient Indian culture into Aryan and non-Aryan is itself derived from the theory of an Aryan invasion. As Sita Ram Goel points out, as long as we continue to talk of Aryan and non-Aryan cultures, the terms ‘Aryan’ and ‘Dravidian’ cannot be divested of racial connotations.

But worse is to follow. The guidelines stipulate that the ancient period of Indian history cannot be referred to as Hindu period. They warn against over reliance on and use of myths as history (i.e. Ramayana and Mahabharata as also Rama and Krishna should find no place in history). “Over glorification” of country’s past is forbidden and the “Gupta Age can no longer be referred to as the golden period of Hinduism”, say the guidelines.

As regards the medieval period, the guidelines say that “Muslim rulers cannot be identified as foreigners except for early invades who did not settle here; Aurangazeb can no longer be referred to as the champion of Islam; Shivaji cannot be over glorified in Maharashtra textbooks; characterization of the medieval period as a dark period or as a time of conflict between Hindus and Muslims is forbidden. Historians cannot identify Muslims as rulers and Hindus as subjects. The state cannot be described as theocracy, without examining actual influence of religion. No exaggeration of the role of religion in political conflicts is permitted … nor should there be neglect and omission of trends and processes of assimilation and synthesis.”

History scholar Sita Ram Goel has commented on each of these guidelines in great detail and shown how they make it impossible to write an honest history of India. Doing away with the distortions inherent in these guidelines will be first task of future historians.

Notice how accurately the guidelines conform to the perceptions of British historians, the Aligarh school and Marxists. Needless to say, those who laid down the guidelines belonged to the same group of ‘eminent’ historians who wrote textbooks in conformity with them.

The result is predictable. The history books written by these ‘eminent’ historians cannot stand a moment’s scrutiny.

In a powerful challenge to the eminence of the so-called eminent historians, the journalist scholar Arun Shourie documented their lies, perversions and double standards in his book Eminent Historians: Their Technology, Their Line, Their Fraud. Fifteen years after its publication, its contents remain uncontested on veracity and accuracy.

He showed how the Leftists have deliberately and systematically falsified our history in a massive though clumsy and dishonest attempt to fit it into Marxist categories. Giving concrete examples, he has laid bare their ideological predilections as well as their dirty tricks. The book covers entire gamut of Indian history, encompassing ancient, medieval and modern periods. A few examples will suffice for our purpose.

Consider, for example, what our students are taught about Bhagavad Gita. Gita has been a source of spiritual inspiration, guidance and solace for millions, as also philosophical speculation for thinkers through the ages. Commentators from Shankara and Ramanuja to Tilak, Aurobindo, and Gandhiji in our age have sought to interpret it in the light of their own intuition and experience.

All of them, however, missed what is self-evident to our eminent historian: “The doctrine of Bhakti, clearly enunciated first in the Gita … became socially more relevant in the Gupta period … when the feudatories considered themselves as meditating at the feet of their masters.” This is because Bhakti “reflected the complete dependence of the serfs or tenants on the landowners in the context of Indian feudal society”.

That pearl of scholarly insight is from D N Jha’s Ancient India. And he has borrowed it from his theoretical ancestor D D Kosambi: “Thus, Gita was a logical performance for the early Gupta period when expanding village settlement brought in new wealth to a powerful central government.”

What a way to decide the date of Gita and interpret its message! But the great scholar cannot stop till he has ‘demonstrated’ the ultimate failure of the scripture. “The Gita might help reconcile certain factions of the ruling class … but it could not possibly bring about any fundamental change in the means of production [notice the assumption that this was the task of the scripture, from which follows the failure!], nor could its fundamental lack of contact with reality [despite its being ‘a logical performance for the age’] and disdain for logical consistency [which the great dialectician Shankara, among others, missed] promote a rational approach to the basic problems of Indian society.”

Coming to the medieval period, NCERT guideline stipulate that historians cannot identify Muslims as rulers and Hindus as subjects, and that the state in medieval India under Muslim rule cannot be described as a theocracy without examining the role of religion in political conflicts.

Here, in their zeal to whitewash the dark and blood-soaked record of Islam in India, the eminent historians disregard, among other things, the detailed and meticulous contemporary records including those maintained by the court chroniclers of the Muslim rulers themselves.

Thus, this is what some Hindu records say about the condition of Hindus under Muslim rule. Gangadevi, the wife of Kumar Kampana (died 1374 AD) of Vijayanagara, writes as follows in her Madhurãvijayam regarding the state of things in the Madurai region when it was under Muslim rule: “The wicked mlechchas pollute the religion of the Hindus every day. They break the images of gods into pieces and throw away the articles of worship. They throw into fire Srimad Bhagwat and other holy scriptures, forcibly take away the conch shell and bell of the Brahmanas, and lick the sandal paints on their bodies. They urinate like dogs on the tulsi plant and deliberately pass faeces in the Hindu temples. They throw water from their mouths on the Hindus engaged in worship, and harass the Hindu saints as if they were so many lunatics let large.” 

Chaitanya Mañgala, a biography of the great Vaishnava saint of medieval India, presents the plight of Hindus in Navadvipa on the eve of the saint’s birth in 1484 AD. The author, Jayananda, writes: “The king seizes the Brahmanas, pollutes their caste and even takes their lives. If a conch shell is heard to blow in any house, its owner is made to forfeit his wealth, caste and even life. The king plunders the houses of those who wear sacred threads on the shoulder and put scared marks on the forehead, and then binds them. He breaks the temples and uproots tulsi plants. The bathing in Ganga is prohibited and hundreds of sacred ashvattha and jack trees have been cut down.’

Then there is this searing cry of Guru Nanak recorded in the Guru Granth Sahib: “having lifted Islam to the head, You have engulfed Hindustan in dread … these dogs have destroyed diamond-like Hindustan, (so great is their terror that) no one asks after those who have been killed … Hindus have been forbidden to pray at the time of the Muslim’s namaz, Hindu society has been left without a bath, even those who have never uttered Ram, can get no respite” (Mahla 1.360 and 1.417).

Here is a falsehood and worse from the same period: “Firuz executed a Brahmin for abusing the prophet of Islam. On the other hand, there were some instances of conversion of Muslims to Hinduism. Thus, Chaitanya, the great Vaishnava reformer, converted a number of Muslims.” So writes Satish Chandra in his Medieval India.

Contrast it with this: “A report was brought to the Sultan that there was in Delhi an old Brahman who persisted in publicly performing the worship of idols in his house; and that people of the city, both Musalmans and Hindus, used to resort to his house to worship the idol…. An order was accordingly given that the Brahman should be brought into the presence of the Sultan at Firozabad…. The true faith was declared to the Brahman and the right course pointed out, but he refused to accept it. Orders were given for raising a pile of faggots before the door of the darbar. The Brahman was tied hand and foot and cast into it; the tablet was thrown on top and the pile was lighted. The writer of this book was present at the darbar and witnessed the execution … the wood was dry, and the fire first reached his feet and drew from him a cry, but the flames quickly enveloped his head and consumed him.”

That is the heart-rending eye-witness account of the incident recorded in Tarikh-i-Firuz Shahi of Shamsuddin bin Sirajuddin Afif, courtier of Sultan Firuz Shah Tughlaq (1350-1388 AD) himself.

A classic example of what Ram Swarup calls history versus historians. And yes, some germination of composite culture, too.

Our eminent historian does not, of course, tell us how many Muslims Chaitanya converted, by what means and how it compares with lakhs upon lakhs of Hindus whose conversion the Muslim historians of the time celebrated. It would go against his secular credentials to note that in every case, Muslims were only returning to their ancestral religion.

Nor is the falsification confined to individual incidents. It covers entire epochs, running over centuries.

Relying on another ‘eminent’ historian R S Sharma, Satish Chandra informs us that the Indian economy in the seventh to tenth centuries became almost exclusively rural or agrarian-oriented, with trade and urbanism suffering a distinct decline, internally, but also externally as the India trade fell off because the Byzantines stopped importing silk from India.

Andre Wink (Al-Hind, The Making of The Indo-Islamic World, Oxford University Press, Vol. I, 1990, p. 220-222), notes, “… R. S. Sharma, whose Indian Feudalism has misguided virtually all historians of the period, not only because it is entirely written from the a priori assumption of the ‘dark age’ doggedly searching for point by point parallels with Europe, but also, more accidentally, because there has never been anything to challenge it.”

After examining the material on which Sharma relied to formulate his thesis, Wink says: “Sharma’s thesis essentially 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) or because of the antiquated Marxist scheme of a ‘necessary’ development of ‘feudalism’ out of ‘slavery’. 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’” (Quoted by Meenakshi Jain in A Random Survey of Satish Chandra’s Medieval India).

About Mughal empire before Aurangzeb, Satish Chandra tells us: “There was no atmosphere of confrontation between the Sikhs and Mughal ruler during this period. Nor was there any systematic persecution of Hindus, and hence, no occasion for Sikhs or any group or sect to stand forth as the champion of the Hindus against religious persecution.”

Really? The atrocities committed by Babur when he invaded India in 1521 drew a poignant cry from Guru Nanak who in his agony took God to task: “Thou hast sent Yama disguised as the great Moghul Babar, Terrible was the slaughter, Loud were the cries of the lamenters, Did this not awaken pity in Thee, O Lord?” (Adi Granth, p. 360) It was the martyrdom of Guru Arjun Dev in 1606 by Jahangir that proved a turning point in the attitude of Sikh Gurus towards the Muslim rulers when they decided to defend their rights by arms. Sir Edward MacLagan notes in The Jesuits and the Great Mogul (p. 28): “Throughout the journey from the coast to Fatehpur, the Fathers found that the Hindu temples had been destroyed by Mohammedans.” During the reign of Akbar, Governor of Lahore Husain Khan had decreed that “the Hindus should stick patches of different colours onto their shoulders or on the bottom of their sleeves, so that no Muslim might be put to indignity of showing them honour by mistake” (Sri Ram Sharma, Religious Policy of the Mughals, p. 14. Italics added).

And finally a sample, from the modern period, of wilful disregard of evidence or shameful ignorance.

Explaining the growth of Muslim separatism during the struggle for Independence, Bipan Chandra informs us (in Modern India) that the very nature of nationalist movement alienated the Muslims. In other words, Hindus are to be blamed for Muslim separatism and Partition.

“Militant nationalism was to some extent a step back in respect of growth of national unity … speeches and writings of some militant nationalists had a strong religious and Hindu tinge…. Tilak’s propagation of Shivaji and Ganapati festival, Aurobindo’s semi-mystical conception of India as mother, the terrorists’ oath before goddess Kali and the initiation of anti-partition agitation with dips in Ganga could hardly appeal to the Muslims…. The reformers put a one-sided emphasis on the religious and philosophical aspects of cultural heritage…. Hindu reformers invariably confined their praise of the Indian past to its ancient period … the manner in which history was taught also contributed to the growth of communal feelings….”

The learned historian never pauses to ask: Why should the Muslims object to any expression of Hindu sentiment or symbolism if that expression is not directed against them or their tradition?

Shourie points out that Muslim separatism is rooted in the teachings of Quran and Hadis as the separation between the believers and non-believers is of very essence in Islam. In addition to citing from Quran and Hadis to support his point, he quotes V S Naipaul’s heart-rending account (in Beyond Belief) of the consequences of this insistence on the believers: “Islam is not simply a matter of conscience or private belief. It makes imperial demands. A convert’s world view alters. His holy places are in Arab lands; his sacred language is Arabic. His idea of history alters. He rejects his own; he becomes, whether he likes it or not, a part of the Arab story. The convert has to turn away from everything that is his own.” The eminent historian totally disregards this separatist tendency inherent in Islam and lays the blame squarely on Hindu nationalists, reformers and history teachers.

These are not isolated illustrations handpicked to drive home the point. The bias, the predilection, the prejudice and the mindset peeping from these examples prevail throughout these history books.

Yet, the shoddiness and incompetence visible in history books written by the so-called eminent historians are not entirely or even mainly due to individual carelessness or lack of information, as we shall see.

Sita Ram Goel3 – A history cast in a mould

The shoddiness and incompetence visible in history books written by the so-called eminent historians are not due to individual carelessness or lack of information. For communists, the use of any history is to prove their dogma. The moving power of communism is a deep-rooted self-alienation and its main ally is cultural and spiritual illiteracy. The Leftist writers have done their best to propagate these ‘values’ through their books on history.

Their histories are set to a formula: Ancient India must be presented as a land of discord, a land in the grip of a social and political system marked by injustice, extreme inequalities and oppression leading to perpetual social tensions. Islamic period must be presented as one in which the ‘composite culture’ flourished, a policy of broad toleration was the norm, and any departures from that policy were just aberrations of individuals which can be traced to wholly secular causes. When coming to the modern period, these Hindus wielding the sword of Islam show an extraordinary empathy for and understanding of Muslim separatists and separatism. Shourie has documented their shift from erasure to parity to absolution.

However, since the existing evidence in all the cases point to the opposite direction, their eminences have to strain every nerve to make the story fit into the preconceived mould. Inventions, conjectures, double standards and circular reasoning are, therefore, the hallmark of their creations.

In their world of make-believe, Hinduism is Brahmanism, an ‘ism’ which serves the interests of Brahmins. These interests can be served only by exploitation and oppression of lower castes. Hence, Hinduism is necessarily an arrangement for exploitation and oppression of the masses. “The ideological conflict between Vedic Brahmins and the followers of newly-born protestant creeds [a maliciously misleading description of Buddhism and Jainism] may have been a potential source of social and religious tension, though an actual example of this is wanting”. Is this history?

If some statement of Kautilya supports the thesis of these historians (like low wages of artisans who were mostly shudras), it is proof of empirical reality. However, if it goes against the thesis (e.g. recommendation for recruitment of shudras and vaishyas in the army) then the absence of empirical evidence is cited to doubt its observance in practice.

Clearest statements in several texts that a person becomes Brahmin by character and conduct, not by birth, are brushed aside as desiderata; but statements of Manu prescribing discriminatory punishments for identical offences are taken as proof positive that differential justice was, in fact, meted out in practice.

Brahmins invented the theory of Karma, we are told, to persuade the poor masses to serve their masters well in this life so as to get reward in subsequent life; they invented avatarvad to persuade the suffering masses that they need not do anything in particular, that God himself will take care of it. The fact that Karma theory can be and has been interpreted to mean exactly the opposite, that having explained avataravad to Arjuna, Krishna exhorted him to fight and uproot the evil, is conveniently glossed over.

The Mauryas are denounced for setting up a centralised administration, while the Guptas are denounced for decentralizing it. When Manu specifies different tasks for different sections, he is held up as champion of an exploitative order. Simultaneously, the Guptas are condemned for demanding the same work as compulsory labour from all sections of society.

Romila Thapar cited three inscriptions about an incident involving the alleged persecution of Jains by Shaivas. Sita Ram Goel looked them up. He found that two of them had absolutely no connection with the incident while the third one, held to be spurious, told an entirely different story.

Double standards and contradictions of Leftist historians become all the more remarkable when contrasted with their treatment of Islamic rulers. Bhakti is just a reflection of the total subservience of the hapless tenant to the landlord under feudalism. But Islam, which literally means ‘surrender’, is a noble sentiment – total submission to the will of Allah. Taxes levied by Mauryas were oppressive exactions for maintaining coercive apparatus of the empire, but the Jaziya extracted by Sultans was a little something by paying which Hindus could lead normal lives. The Mauryas instituted a centralised, over-bearing state. Their army was an instrument for maintaining domination, the coercive arm of the state. Their legal and judicial system was an important weapon in the hands of the ruling class. However, such a thing is never said of the Islamic law or the armies of Sultans and Mughals.

All epochs in the ancient period from which people can draw pride or inspiration are tarred in some manner or the other. By contrast, the aggression, butchery and devastations committed by Islamic rulers are sanitised through a three-layer filter. First, the devastation is attributed to individuals and not to the religion. Second, among individuals, it is made out that just a few individuals – a few isolated exceptions – indulged in it. Third, it is said that they committed aggression, destroyed temples, pulverized idols, not because of some religious belief but because as rulers they had to put down their opponents who happened to be Hindus, and because of mundane considerations of greed for the riches of the temples, the need to establish political sway over conquered territory, etc.

However, Muslim historians of medieval India treat every war waged against the Hindus as a jihad as enjoined by the Prophet and the Pious Caliphs. While narrating deeds of wanton cruelty and rapacity they express extreme satisfaction and gleeful gratitude to Allah that the mission of the Prophet has been fulfilled, the light of Islam brought to an area of darkness, and idolatry wiped out.

Even a ‘saint’ like Amir Khusrow, supposed to be the pioneer of secularism in India, writes in his Khazãin-ul-Futûh also known as the Tãrîkh-i-Alãî:  “The whole country by means of the sword of our holy warriors has become like a forest denuded of its thorns by fire. The land has been saturated by the waters of the sword, and the vapours of infidelity [Hinduism] have been dispersed. The strong men of Hind have been trodden under foot, and all are ready to pay tribute. Islam is triumphant, idolatry is subdued. Had not the law (of Hanifa) granted exemption from death by the payment of jiziya, the very name of Hind, root and branch, would have been extinguished.”

All this falsification was carried out and justified in the name of national integration. The results of this massive wilful exercise in untruth are visible to all except those who are under an ideological compulsion not to see them. Hindu-Muslim unity remains as much of a mirage as it was in the days of Mahatma Gandhi. In fact, Islamic imperialism has become many times more self-confident and self-righteous than on the eve of Partition. Caste system, which was for ages the most cohesive factor and a sure source of strength for Hindu society, has been converted into a cancer which poisons the very springs of our politics. Regionalism fostered by local patriotism, missionary machinations, and sectarian separatism has assumed so alarming proportions as imperil the very unity of the country.

The project was doomed to failure right from the start. Voices of warnings from competent historians were not wanting. S Krishnaswami Aiyangar held that the value of study of history would be destroyed by the slightest interference with the recording of its actual course, or if it were made to subserve other purposes, however noble. “For instance, we cannot hope to end fanaticism in character and convictions of the nation’s youth by omitting from history all that which tends to promote sectarian fanaticism, and telling the lying tale that there were no fanatics or acts of fanaticism before us. The right way to proceed is to register the fanatical acts and those influences which were responsible for the perpetration of fanatical deeds, and by pointing out the dire consequences to human society that such deeds entailed.” (Quoted by E Sreedharan in A Textbook of Historiography, 500 BC to 2000 ADp. 449)

R C Majumdar wrote in his presidential address at the sixth annual conference of Institute of Historical Studies at Srinagar in 1968 which he could not attend that “History divorced from truth does not help a nation. Its future should be laid on the stable foundations of truth and not on the quicksand of falsehoods, however alluring it may appear at present. India is now at the cross roads and I urge my friends to choose carefully the path they would like to tread upon.”

These words of warning have acquired an enhanced validity in the present context. The false notions strongly fortified by a doctored history have confused our intellect, clouded our vision and paralysed our will to face deadly enemies out to dismember our country and destroy our cultural identity. At same time, we are faced with a situation when the distorted version has become the standard one and any attempt to correct it immediately draws howls of protest against “brazen attempts to communalise history” even from people who should know better. We need a clearer understanding and more frank acceptance of the past so as to cope better with the present.

Ram Swarup 4 – How to fight this battle, and how not

Any talk of rewriting history, as Ram Swarup remarked, leaves a bad taste in mouth. It offends our sense of truth by arousing suspicion of manipulation of evidence and distortion of perspective. The manner in which the exercise was carried out in communist countries has only served to confirm that suspicion.

But India is in a peculiar position. Here the boot is on the other foot. India has the dubious distinction of having its history written by people who were in varying degrees hostile or alien to it in some way or other. Indeed, it faces a situation in which the distorted version has become the standard one. Any attempt to correct it immediately draws howls of protest against “brazen attempts to communalise history” even from people who should know better. We need a clearer understanding and more frank acceptance of the past so as to cope better with the present.

There is another equally weighty reason for having a fresh look at the current version of India’s history: emergence of new material significant enough to unsettle long-held beliefs. The rediscovery of the Vedic river Saraswati, delineation of its course from Himalayan range to the sea on the western coast, discovery of more Harappan settlements spread over a vast area and the materials they yielded have established that the Vedic Aryans were native to India and the Indus Valley civilisation was continuation of an older civilization. Use of modern astronomy and computer simulation has enabled verification of astronomical references in ancient texts to determine important dates. These have helped establish historicity of major events and protagonists in both the epics with fairly accurate estimate of their dates. The details are far from settled, but the broad drift of conclusions is unmistakable.

The recent surge in militant Islam has prompted several thinkers in the West to study its primary sources and bring out the intolerance, aggressiveness and proneness to violence that is inherent in it, so far as non-Muslims are concerned. (As an aside: it is amazing but true that although the Hindus have suffered most and worst at the hands of Islam and its followers, they have as a group shown little inclination to study their tormentor.) Conscious attempts to downplay the role of religion in medieval India now look misguided as also the attempts to explain away Islamic separatism as a reaction to ‘Hindu’ nationalism in modern period.

Taken together, the new material has vindicated the national vision that a very large majority of Indians have cherished through millenniums and has been articulated in recent times by such savants as Swami Vivekananda, Maharshi Aurobindo and Bankim Chandra. This vision regards India as the cradle of Sanatana Dharma, which has spawned a vast and variegated culture welding the most diverse mass of humanity into an organic whole known as the Hindu society. The ancient Bharatavarsha is the indivisible homeland of Hindu society. The history of India is history of Hindu society and civilization and not of those who invaded it. It is a saga of its origin, growth, its achievements, the challenges it faced and met as also its setbacks and shortcomings.

A word of caution is necessary here. Many historians set out to fight colonial historiography with a patriotic one. However, from patriotism to chauvinism is but a step. If the imperialist historians were prone to see everything bad in India’s past, some nationalist historians tend to see everything good in it. In their writings, emotion and sentiment usurp the place of reason; detachment, objectivity, balance and perspective all take a back seat. A deep conviction of India’s past glory has led some historians to stretch their arguments to a ridiculous extent. K P Jayaswal, for instance, asserted the existence in ancient India of constitutional monarchy, parliamentary government, voting of grants and address from the throne. P N Oak said England, Italy, Arabia, Iran and Iraq were Hindu countries once upon a time, West Minster Abbey was a Shiva temple and English is a Sanskrit dialect.

Another variant of the theme was that ancient India did not lag behind modern Europe in scientific achievement. We are told that there were firearms and aircrafts in epic periods. Dinanath Batra traces stem cell research to Mahabharata era and thinks that the Vedic Aryans moved around in motorcars then known as anashwaratha (horseless chariot). Usually these writers rely on stretching the meanings of words in ancient texts and offer little else to substantiate their conclusions.

Overtly nationalist history suffers from the same defect—deviation from the ideal of objectivity—that it seeks to ‘correct’ in other versions of history. This is the inevitable result of using history to serve current interests. Moreover, the desire to ‘prove’ that ancient India had the institutions and ideals that are cherished by modern West betrays a subtle inferiority complex.

But the worst offence of zealots masquerading as historians is that they have discredited the really serious Hindu scholarship. By wildly exaggerating his case even when he had something like that (e.g. Taj Mahal), Oak brought into disrepute all serious scholars (best represented by Voice of India) who assiduously sought to sift truth from the falsehood. The enemies of Hinduism had only to liken these scholars’ work with Oak’s to debunk it without bothering to examine it in any detail.

That apart, Oak did not realise that his work could be cleverly used by missionaries to undermine the very tradition that he thought he was defending and glorifying. Some missionaries have spent lifetime studying Vedanta not for moksha but for devising ways to present it like an extension or variation of Christianity so as to fool the gullible Hindus into conversion.

Koenraad Elst puts it pithily, “The very numerous P.N. Oak party members among the Hindus are not only an endless source of laughter for all enemies of Hinduism. They are also a useful fifth column within the crumbling fortress of Indian Paganism. For the sake of Hindu survival, it is vital that real history gets restored: not only against the secular anti-Hindu version, but also against the Hindu caricature.” (Christianity is not Krishna-Neeti and the Vatican was never a Shiva temple by Koenraad Elst).

An imagined past can never breed real sense of pride or glory. As R C Majumdar said, the task of the historian is merely to show what really happened. The ascertainment of the truth of the past so far as it can be ascertained is the one object, the one sanction, of all historical studies.

He went on to say, “history is no respecter of persons and sentiments and must always strive to tell the truth so far as it can be deduced from reliable evidence by following the cannons commonly accepted as sound by all historians. A historian has to express the truth without fear, envy, malice, passion or prejudice, and irrespective of all extraneous considerations, both political and humane. In judging any remark or opinion expressed in such a history the question to be asked is not whether it is pleasant or unpleasant, mild or strong, impolitic or imprudent, but simply whether it is true or false, just or unjust, and above all, whether it is or is not supported by evidence at our disposal.” (Preface to The History and Culture of the Indian People, Vol. VI, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, Bombay.)

Sir Jadunath Sarkar, doyen of Indian historians, went even further. “I would not care whether truth is pleasant or unpleasant, and in consonance with or opposed to current views.  I would not mind in the least whether truth is or is not a blow to the glory of my country. If necessary I shall bear in patience the ridicule and slander of friends and society for the sake of preaching truth. But still I shall seek truth, understand truth and accept truth. This should be the firm resolve of the historian,” he said in Presidential speech given at a historical conference in Bengal, 1915.

He further clarified his position on history in a letter to Dr. Rajendra Prasad in 1937. He wrote: “National history, like every other history worthy of the name and deserving to endure, must be true as regards the facts and reasonable interpretation of them….”

Many nationalists, and most RSS sympathizers, would squirm at these formulations. They need not. The achievements of Hindu society are so glorious that they do not need extra polishing. Please remember that even after sticking to such high standards of objectivity both Dr. Majumdar and Sir Jadunath Sarkar are regarded as nationalist historians.

At the same time, history should also enlighten us about our shortcomings, failures and mistakes if it is to serve as a guide for future. R C Manjumdar says that the haze of glory in which Prithviraj Chauhan lives in popular memory is considerably dimmed when we realize the consequences of his failure to pursue Shahabuddin Ghori to Multan and drive him out of India. He did not regard 1857 as a national war of independence. Jadunath Sarkar is often charged with a bias against Islam and Muslims but he was equally unsparing in his account of atrocities of Maratha raiders in northern India. Sita Ram Goel judged Marathas harshly for losing the battle to the British, and allowing India to pass under another imperialist yoke. For, at that time the Marathas were the only power in the field with a potential to win national freedom from Islamic imperialism, and save India from British imperialism. Such judgments would multiply as we approach the modern period about which we have far more recorded facts. There is no reason for us to accept their views, but then we should come up with other relevant facts to counter them.

What is to be done? Ideally, Indian Council of Historical Research under its new Chairman Prof. Y Sudershan Rao should engage competent scholars who could marshal the new evidence on major themes of Indian history and present a convincing case for revising the current version of history. The outcome will depend on its selection of scholars to take up the task. If they are chosen on the basis of their proximity to certain individuals or organizations, then the result will be predictable. Alternatively, Hindu organizations should come forward to fight this battle. They must invest money, people and infrastructure in serious history. As a last resort, a small group of Hindu scholars could pool their resources together and prepare and submit a case for revising history books to the concerned authorities. The exercise would be timely as the central HRD ministry is reportedly planning to revise NCERT history textbooks.

But does the Hindu society still have the will, the resources and the determination to put the record straight? Is it even aware of the danger facing it? Time will tell.


  1. Historians Versus History“, Ram Swarup in Hindu Temples: What happened to them, Vol. I & II, Voice of India, New Delhi. Vol. I 1990, Vol. II 1993.
  2. The Story of Islamic Imperialism in India, Sita Ram Goel, Voice of India, New Delhi, 1994.
  3. The History and Culture of Indian People, Vol. VI and VII, R C Majumdar, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, Bombay. Vol. VI, 4th Ed. 1990, Vol. VII 3rd Ed. 1994.
  4. Eminent Historians: Their Technology, Their Line, Their Fraud, Arun Shourie, ASA, Delhi, 1998.
  5. Textbook of Historiography, 500 BC to 2000 AD, E Sreedharan, Orient Blackswan, Hyderabad, 2004.
  6. A Random Survey of Satish Chandra’s ‘Medieval India’, (NCERT 2000) by Meenakshi Jain, http://www.hindureview.com.
  7. Nationalism and Distortions in Indian History, N S Rajaram, Voice of India, New Delhi, 2000.

» Virendra Parekh is the Executive Editor of Corporate India and lives in Mumbai. 

Battle of Assaye: Marathas vs British

British troops leaving India in 1947

See also

What is Hindu rashtra? – Aakar Patel

Mohan Bhagwat

Aakar Patel“The conflation of India, Indus and Hindu is of course ancient and we know of the Indica of Arrian (which records the campaigns of Alexander the Great in Punjab) and the Indica of Megasthenes. Arrian refers to Punjabis east of the Indus as the Indoi.” – Aakar Patel

Najma HeptullaWhat exactly is Hindu rashtra? This is one of the phrases that worry those who are frightened of the tendencies of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. But are they right to be worried?

What is the RSS thinking of when its chief Mohan Bhagwat says, as he did a few days ago, that “Hindustan Hindu rashtra hai (India is a Hindu nation)”?

The question to be asked is: What does Mr Bhagwat mean by “Hindu” in this context?

And also a second one, what does he mean by “rashtra”? To answer the second one first, rashtra means nation, though loosely it could also mean state (ordinarily the word used in Hindi for the state is sarkar).

A Hindu state is a reasonably precise thing, because the religious texts tell us what its structure is.

Till 2008, Nepal was the only Hindu state on earth. The Chhetri (Kshatriya) dynasty ended with the republic of 2008. Why was Nepal a Hindu state? Because executive power flowed from a warrior king, as prescribed in the Hindu code, Manusmriti. But Nepal was a “Hindu state” only to that extent. Nothing else from Hindu texts could be applied because much of it is against the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The RSS has not made the demand that the Indian state be organised by caste, so we will assume that the word rashtra was used in the sense of “nation”.

The dictionary defines nation as “a large aggregate of people united by common descent, history, culture or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory”.

Let us look at the word Hindu then.

Goa’s Deputy Chief Minister, Francis D’SouzaThe conflation of India, Indus and Hindu is of course ancient and we know of the Indica of Arrian (which records the campaigns of Alexander the Great in Punjab) and the Indica of Megasthenes. Arrian refers to Punjabis east of the Indus as the Indoi.

However, this conflation makes no sense when used in the line “Hindustan Hindu rashtra hai” because it would then mean Hindustan is an Indian nation, which is a tautology. Clearly, Mr Bhagwat meant something a little different when he said Hindu. One interpretation is that he meant that Indians should all recognise that it is Hindu identity that is at the root of their cultural expression.

That Islam and Christianity in India were also in some way an aspect of Hindustani culture and should be different from Islam and Christianity as they are practised elsewhere in the world.

When Hindu is used in the geographic sense, the RSS has support from many people, including some minorities who agree with its definition. Goa’s Deputy Chief Minister, Francis D’Souza of the BJP, told in an interview: “India is a Hindu nation. There is no doubt about it. It is always a Hindu nation and it will always stay a Hindu nation. You don’t have to create a Hindu nation.”

Asked to explain, Mr D’Souza said, “India is a Hindu country — Hindustan. All Indians in Hindustan are Hindus, including me. I am a Christian Hindu, I am Hindustani.”

Abdul Rasheed AnsariThe BJP’s Minority Morcha president Abdul Rasheed Ansari also agreed. In an interview to PTI, Ansari pointed to Allama Iqbal’s poem Tarana-e-Hindi (commonly known as Saare jahan se achcha). In it, Iqbal refers to Indians as Hindi in the lines — “Hindi hain hum, watan hai Hindustan ha-mara” (We are Hindis and our land is Hindustan).

Mr Ansari said that “in my opinion, whatever Mr Bhagwat said was in a social context.”

Another Muslim, Union minority affairs minister Najma Heptullah, also defended Mr Bhagwat in an interview [listen to the recording of what she actually said to the Hindustan Times]. Asked if it was right to call India’s minorities “Hindu-Muslims” and “Hindu-Christians”, Ms Heptullah said, “It is not about right or wrong. It is about history.” If some people called Muslims Hindi or Hindu they should not be so sensitive because it didn’t affect their faith, she added.

It is good that the RSS chief has Christians and Muslims interpreting his words, but it would be much better if he himself gave a coherent explanation that would satisfy his critics. – Deccan Chronicle, 31 August 2014

» Aakar Patel is an editor, author and columnist in Mumbai and Chennai. He tweets at @AakarPatel_mint — though he says he is not on social media!

Napoleon Bonaparte

2 – An “eminent historian” attacks Arun Shourie – Koenraad Elst


Koenraad Elst“Like any stage magician, Jha indulges in misdirection. While he himself has been caught in the act of misquoting his source (Yadava), and repeats this act of dishonesty in this very article, he tries to offset his embarrassment by a flight forward, viz. heaping imaginary allegations and plain swearwords upon Arun Shourie.” – Dr Koenraad Elst

D.N. Jha’s “Reply to Arun Shourie”, dated 9 July 2014, was published in shorter form as “Grist to the reactionary mill”, Indian Express, 9 July 2014. It starts as follows: “I was amused to read ‘How History Was Made Up At Nalanda’ [28 June 2014, The Indian Express] by Arun Shourie, who has dished out ignorance masquerading as knowledge – reason enough to have pity on him and sympathy for his readers!”

Shourie had charged him with fudging evidence to distort the historical narrative of the destruction of the ancient Nalanda Mahavihar. Jha therefore considered it necessary to “rebut his allegations and set the record straight instead of ignoring his balderdash”. Note the unscholarly language, and this at his advanced age. We are dealing with a verbal street-fighter who has been given a post as an academic. Further down, we see him belittling his opponent, typical for the nouveau riche who thinks the world of his own status. When Shourie doubts miracle-tales as historical sources, Jha does not justify his own use of the same, but plays up his academic status: “Acceptance or rejection of this kind of source criticism is welcome if it comes from a professional historian but not from someone who flirts with history as Shourie does.”

Prof D. N. JhaMisdirection

The article is, as usual in secularist polemics, an exercise in misdirection. Beating around the issues of history, Jha draws the reader’s attention away from those by indulging in nit-picking: “My presentation at the Indian History Congress, to which Shourie refers, was in 2006 and not 2004 as stated by Shourie. It was not devoted to the destruction of ancient Nalanda per se – his account misleads readers and pulls the wool over their eyes.” His entire presentation may have contained material for several more articles, but here Shourie has focused on one daring lie of Jha’s in the course of that presentation, viz. the claim that the disappearance of Nalanda University was due to Hindus rather than Muslims.

Jha: “It was in fact focused on the antagonism between Brahmins and Buddhists, for which I drew on different kinds of evidence including myths and traditions.” At least he has the merit of pointing to a rhetoric that, that force of repetition from high pedestals, has by now almost become an established fact, viz. that Hindus themselves did to Buddhists what they allege Muslims did to them. Hindus have let this lie fester for decades, and at their own peril.

Jha: “In this context I cited the tradition recorded in the 18th century Tibetan text, Pag-sam-jon-zang by Sumpa Khan-Po Yece Pal Jor, mentioned by B. N. S. Yadava in his Society and Culture in Northern India in the Twelfth Century — with due acknowledgement, although in his pettiness Shourie is quick to discover plagiarism on my part! (I may add that ‘Hindu fanatics’ are not my words but Yadav’s, which is why they are in quotes. How sad that one has to point this out to a winner of the Magsaysay Award!)” Jha did mention Yadava as his source in general, but his quoted phrase “Hindu fanatics” was such that it gave the reader the impression of being from the Tibetan original. Either way, both he and Yadava are plainly wrong when they use the anachronistic term “Hindu fanatics”, because the source text only calls them “beggars”. There is no indication at all that they acted out of fanaticism; instead, it is explicitly mentioned that they were angry at being mistreated by some Buddhist monks.

The crux of Shourie’s argument is that Jha, too lazy to go to the original source, merely quotes Yadava as an authority but omits to mention that Yadava himself considers the source untrustworthy. That is clearly dishonest, and Jha has been caught in the act of committing it. Yet, in this article, Jha nowhere addresses the allegation that he himself has been dishonest, a central point of the article he claims to reply to. He even repeats the same trick: invoking Yadava as authoritative support for the Tibetan fairy-tale.

Jha: “In his conceit Shourie is disdainful and dismissive of the Tibetan tradition, which has certain elements of miracle in it, as recorded in the text.” Correction: he is only dismissive of the use a Marxist historian makes of it. In the Ayodhya affair, Marxists, and secularists in general, dismissed the Hindu side’s claim (which was not even miracle-mongering, just tradition-based) as “irrational”. And that claim was also based on documentary and archaeological evidence, whereas this Tibetan tale stands alone, is from five hundred years after the fact, and is contradicted by other evidence.

Jha: “Here is the relevant extract from Sumpa’s work cited by Shourie: ‘While a religious sermon was being delivered in the temple that he [Kakut Siddha] had erected at Nalanda, a few young monks threw washing water at two Tirthika beggars. (The Buddhists used to designate the Hindus by the term Tirthika). The beggars, being angry, set fire on the three shrines of Dharmaganja, the Buddhist University of Nalanda, viz. — Ratna Sagara, Ratna Ranjaka including the nine-storeyed temple called Ratnodadhi which contained the library of sacred books’ (p. 92). Shourie questions how the two beggars could go from building to building to ‘burn down the entire, huge, scattered complex’.”

Shourie is perfectly right to question the verisimilitude of this story. At any rate, Nalanda University comprised more than these three buildings. Whether this Tibetan miracle-tale is true or not, it does at any rate not pertain to the wholesale destruction of Nalanda, though that destruction did take place. The whole university was flattened by fire (as archaeology can confirm), not just three shrines but the teaching and living quarters as well. If anyone could be tricked by the Tibetan tale into thinking that it pertained to this wholesale destruction rather than narrating some small incident, at least it should not be a historian.

Arun ShourieBrahmin-Buddhist antagonism

Jha: “Look at another passage (abridged by me in the following paragraph) from the History of Buddhism in India written by another Tibetan monk and scholar, Taranatha, in the 17th century: ‘During the consecration of the of the temple built by Kakutsiddha at Nalendra [Nalanda] ‘the young naughty sramanas threw slops at the two tirthika beggars and kept them pressed inside door panels and set ferocious dogs on them’. Angered by this, one of them went on arranging for their livelihood and the other sat in a deep pit and “engaged himself in surya sadhana” [solar worship], first for nine years and then for three more years and having thus “acquired mantrasiddhi” he “performed a sacrifice and scattered the charmed ashes all around” which “immediately resulted in a miraculously produced fire” which consumed all the eighty-four temples and the scriptures some of which, however, were saved by water flowing from an upper floor of the nine storey Ratnodadhi temple. (History of Buddhism in India, English tr. Lama Chimpa & Alka Chattopadhyaya, pp.141-42).

If we look at the two narratives closely they are similar. The role of the Tirthikas and their miraculous fire causing a conflagration are common to both.”

Clearly, the two miracle tales have a common source. A polemicist would boast that he has no less than two sources available, but a genuine historian would soberly realize that he can draw only on a single source, centuries removed from the events it claims to narrate.

Jha: “Admittedly, one does not have to take the miracles seriously, but it is not justified to ignore their importance as part of traditions which gain in strength over time and become part of the collective memory of a community.” Notice the very different tune he is singing compared to the Ayodhya controversy. Back then, the whole mission of the “eminent historians” was to debunk the temple destruction scenario which they conceived as merely “part of traditions which gain in strength over time and become part of the collective memory of a community”. Here a sheer miracle story is not debunked, but on the contrary invoked as a decisive historical source.

Jha: “Nor is it desirable or defensible to disregard the long-standing antagonism between Brahmins and Buddhists, which may have given rise to the Tibetan tradition and nurtured it until the 18th century or even later. It is in the context of this Buddhist-Tirthika animosity that the account of  assumes importance; it also makes sense because it jibes with Taranatha’s evidence. Further, neither Sumpa nor Taranatha ever came to India. This should mean that the idea of Brahminical hostility to the religion of the Buddha travelled to Tibet fairly early, became part of its Buddhist tradition, and found expression in 17th-18th century Tibetan writings.”

Another explanation for this Tibetan tradition of hostility could be that they heard how Buddhism had been mistreated in India by the Muslim invaders, and concluded that “Indians” or “Hindus” (the two terms were not yet distinct) had done it. Even today, when the communication distance to the West is far smaller than to Tibet back then, numerous Westerners who hear about something wrong in India assume it must have been the doing of Hinduism. But if the Tibetans really thought that Hindus had been anti-Buddhist to the point of destroying major Buddhist shrines, they were simply misinformed. A historian should not merely quote sources, he should also ask himself how pertinent those sources are, and especially whether they are trustworthy. The question of truth, though central to the Indian Republic’s official motto, goes unconsidered too often.

At any rate, there was no “long-standing antagonism between Brahmins and Buddhists”, if only because most Buddhist writers were born Brahmins themselves and partook of Brahminical culture. Buddhist institutions in India flourished under Hindu rule for 16 centuries, otherwise there would have been nothing of them left for the Muslim invaders to destroy. By contrast, when Islam appears on the scene, Buddhism disappears, and not on account of two Tirthika beggars. Cases of polemic between Buddhists and Brahmins may be cited, as also between different Brahminical schools and different Buddhist sects, but they were only the normal exercise of freedom of opinion. They cannot be equated to the Islamic destruction of Buddhism in Central and South Asia.


Jha: “Acceptance of the two Tibetan traditions, the one referred to by me has been given credence not only by Yadava (whom Shourie, in his ignorance, dubs a Marxist!) but also by a number of other Indian scholars like R. K. Mookerji (Education in Ancient India), Sukumar Dutt (Buddhist Monks and Monasteries of India), S. C. Vidyabhushana (Medieval School of Indian Logic), Buddha Prakash (Aspects of Indian History and Civilization), and many others. They were all polymaths of unimpeachable academic honesty and integrity. They had nothing to do, even remotely, with Marxism: which is, to Shourie in his bull avatar, a red rag.”

Marxism is no longer what it used to be; its fall in the Soviet Union and decline in China are making themselves felt even in India at last. Some erstwhile Marxists do not like to be described as Marxist anymore. In the 1990s, Romila Thapar was mentioned in Tom Bottomore’s Dictionary of Marxism as a representative of Marxist history-writing without any discussion, but today she avoids the label “Marxist”. They may be telling one more lie here, this time about their own label, but some of them may genuinely have outgrown Marxism. I leave it to Jha and Shourie, and first of all to Yadava, to decide which description of Yadava is the correct one. But Marxism has conditioned the Indian history discourse, even through many who would reject the “Marxist” label for themselves. It will take time to undo its influence.

Worse is that here again, Jha repeats his lie. Yadava has explicitly written that the said Tibetan tradition is “doubtful”, but once more Jha cites him in its support. He insists on proving Shourie’s allegation right.


Jha: “Now juxtapose the Tibetan tradition with the contemporary account in the Tabaqat–i-Nasiri of Minhaj-i-Siraj, which Shourie not only misinterprets but also blows out of proportion. Although its testimony has no bearing on my argument about Brahmanical intolerance, a word needs to be said about it so as to expose Shourie’s “false knowledge” – which, as G. B. Shaw said, is ‘more dangerous than ignorance’. The famous passage from this text reads exactly as follows:
“He [Bakhtiyar Khalji] used to carry his depredations into those parts and that country until he organized an attack upon the fortified city of Bihar. Trustworthy persons have related on this wise, that he advanced to the gateway of the fortress of Bihar with two hundred horsemen in defensive armour, and suddenly attacked the place. There were two brothers of Farghanah, men of learning, [Nizamu-ud-Din and Samsam-ud-Din] in the service of Muhammad-i-Bakhtiyar, and the author of this book [Minhajuddin] met with at Lakhnawati in the year 641 H and this account is from him. These two wise brothers were soldiers among that band of holy warriors when they reached the gateway of the fortress and began the attack at which time Muhammad-i-Bakhtiyar, by the force of his intrepidity, threw himself into the postern of the gateway of the place, and they captured the fortress and acquired great booty. The greater number of inhabitants of that place were Brahmans, and the whole of those Brahmans had their heads shaven; and they were all slain. There were a great number of books there; and, when all these books came under the observation of the Musalmans, they summoned a number of Hindus that they might give them information respecting the import of those books; but the whole of the Hindus were killed. On becoming acquainted (with the contents of the books), it was found that the whole of that fortress and the city was a college, and in the Hindu tongue, they call a college Bihar” (Tabaqat-i-Nasiri, tr. H. G. Raverty, Calcutta, vol 1, 1881, pp.551-52).

“The above account mentions the fortress of Bihar as the target of Bakhtiyar’s attack. The fortified monastery which Bakhtiyar captured was ‘known as Audand-Bihar or Odandapura-vihara’ (Odantapuri in Biharsharif, then known simply as Bihar). This is the view of many historians but, most importantly, of Jadunath Sarkar, the high priest of communal historiography in India (History of Bengal, vol. 2, Dacca, 1948, pp.3-4). Minhaj does not refer to Nalanda at all: he merely speaks of the ransacking of the ‘fortress of Bihar’ (hisar-i-Bihar). But how can Shourie be satisfied unless Bakhtiyar is shown to have sacked Nalanda? Since Bakhtiyar was leading plundering expeditions in the region of Magadha, Shourie thinks that Nalanda must have been destroyed by him – and, magically, he finds ’evidence’ in an account which does not even speak of the place. Thus an important historical testimony becomes the victim of his anti-Muslim prejudice.”

I remember Sita Ram Goel himself pointing out to me that this passage is about Odantapuri, not Nalanda. So Shourie may have misidentified the institution here. But of course, a description of the Islamic sacking of Odantapuri implies nothing about other places not mentioned. Would the motives that led to the destruction of Odantapuri not have applied to Nalanda as well. We have it from the horse’s mouth, and now also from Jha, that the Islamic invaders sacked Odantapuri and killed every single inmate. We learn elsewhere that in the same military campaign (end of the 12th century), a thousand temples in Varanasi and many more religious institutions at other places were destroyed. Would it then, even without appeal to other sources, be so strange to assume that they did the same to other institutions, which were left unmentioned but nonetheless disappeared? Would that not be far more likely than Jha’s contrived hypothesis that, after sixteen centuries of allowing Buddhism to flourish, Brahmins in their very hour of need suddenly turned against Nalanda?

Ikhtiyar ad-Din Muhammad bin Bakhtiyar KhiljiIslam destroyed Nalanda

Jha becomes distinctly unpleasant when he starts throwing around allegations: “In his zeal, [Shourie] fudges and concocts historical evidence and ignores the fact that Bakhtiyar did not go to Nalanda from Bihar (Biharsharif). Instead, he proceeded to Nadia in Bengal through the hills and jungles of the region of Jharkhand, which, incidentally, finds first mention in an inscription of AD 1295 (Comprehensive History of India, vol. IV, pt. I, p.601). I may add that his whole book, Eminent Historians, from which the article under reference is excerpted, abounds in instances of his cavalier attitude to historical evidence.”

Notice the rhetorical sleight of hand: Shourie the non-historian has made only one mistake of historical fact, and yet Jha multiplies his invective as if it were a habit. By contrast, Jha the history professor has repeatedly been caught in distortions and manipulations in this debate alone, yet he reckons he can get away with those.

But then Jha admits the very thing which secularists, and partly he himself, had set out to deny: “It is neither possible nor necessary to deny that the Islamic invaders conquered parts of Bihar and Bengal and destroyed the famous universities in the region.” So, next time the Vishva Hindu Parishad starts a temple reclamation campaign, it can cite Jha in support.

Jha: “But any one associating Bakhtiyar Khalji with the destruction and burning of the university of Nalanda would be guilty of gross academic dishonesty. Certainly week-end historians like Shourie are always free to falsify historical data, but this has nothing to do with serious history, which is always true to evidence.”

History may be true to the evidence, but Jha with his hair-brained reliance on a much later foreign testimony isn’t. Circumstantial evidence certainly still points to Bakhtiyar Khilji as the culprit, since we don’t know of another commander at that time and in that area. Not every event on his campaign was recorded. As all genuine historians know: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But even his name makes little difference for the larger debate that motivated Jha to his distortions. Numerous holy warriors of Islam displayed the same behaviour as Bakhtiyar Khilji because they had the same motive: the doctrine of Islam with its hatred of Pagans and their institutions. In spite of so much denial and so many distortions, secularists cannot alter that historical fact. Islam had the motive and the chance. Hinduism had the chance for sixteen centuries to destroy the Buddhist institutions but showed no interest because it lacked the motive. Islam, by contrast, appeared on the scene and immediately Buddhism disappeared. Islam is guilty.


Jha’s final word: “Shourie had raised a huge controversy by publishing his scandalous and slanderous Eminent Historians in 1998 during the NDA regime and now, after sixteen years, he has issued its second edition, from which the article under reference has been excerpted. He appears and reappears in the historian’s avatar when the BJP comes to power and does all he can to please his masters. His view of the past is no different from that of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and their numerous outfits, consisting of riff-raff and goons who burn books that do not endorse their views, who vandalize art objects which they label blasphemous, who present a distorted view of Indian history, and who nurture a culture of intolerance. These elements demanded my arrest when my book on beef-eating was published, and they censured James Laine when his book on Shivaji came out. It is not unlikely that Shourie functions in cahoots with people like Dina Nath Batra, who targeted A. K. Ramanujan’s essay emphasizing the diversity of the Ramayana tradition; Wendy Doniger’s writings, which provided an alternative view of Hinduism; Megha Kumar’s work on communalism and sexual violence in Ahmedabad since 1969; and Sekhar Bandopadhyaya’s textbook on modern India, which regrettably does not eulogise the RSS. Arun Shourie seems to have inaugurated a fresh round of battle by fudging, falsifying and fabricating historical evidence and providing grist to Batra’s mill.”

Jha seems to suggest that publishing these allegations (which he doesn’t refute) was only safe with the NDA in power. Apparently the UPA would have done the Eminent Historians’ bidding and arrested Shourie for slander. Then again, maybe as an intellectual Jha found it below his dignity to appeal to the authorities, and preferred the proper medium of a debate. In that case, we would like to see his refutation.

The rest of his final allegation is an exercise in guilt by association. This is beneath the standards of an intellectual but proper for a political polemicist. We have already pointed that the allegation of “fudging, falsifying” etc., repeated here, is unjustified and applies more to Jha himself. Then he associates Shourie with the VHP-RSS penchant for banning books. In reality, Shourie as a crusader for civil rights and probity in public life has always been on the side of free and frank debate. The RSS, by contrast, is a lot more like Jha himself: never addressing issues but grandstanding on extraneous factors: status and the perceived interests of secularism in Jha’s case, patriotic indignation in the case of the RSS. He supposes that is “not unlikely that Shourie functions in cahoots with people like Dina Nath Batra”: this is worse than empty speculation, as it is easy to verify that Shourie was not involved in these recent book-banning operations. Indeed, Jha himself has been targeted, so he knows from experience that those who persecuted him comprised Batra but not Shourie.

To sum up: like any stage magician, Jha indulges in misdirection. While he himself has been caught in the act of misquoting his source (Yadava), and repeats this act of dishonesty in this very article, he tries to offset his embarrassment by a flight forward, viz. heaping imaginary allegations and plain swearwords upon his critic.

Hindu passivity

But he will largely get away with it, and secularists will go on quoting his speech at the Indian History Congress as an argument of authority for their truly daring thesis that “not Muslims but Hindus destroyed Nalanda University” and that this was but an instance of the long-standing hostility between Brahmins and Buddhists. Since the record is not being set straight from any powerful forum, it may even become part of the received wisdom.

At the end of 1990, Sita Ram Goel and myself visited the VHP headquarters at R. K. Puram, Delhi. To some of their bigwigs (names available), I argued passionately that since they had been forced to make a historical case for their Ayodhya demand, and for other reasons too, they badly needed to invest in serious history-writing, rather than relying on either the output furnished by their enemies or the caricatures produced by incompetent Hindus of the P N Oak variety. Wise old Goel just smiled, knowing already what the effect of my enthusiastic plea would be. One VHP leader concluded the conversation by assuring me: “We will think about your suggestion”— the polite way of saying: “Drop dead.” As we left, Goel said: “You could just as well have talked to my wall.” The Sangh Parivar was determined not to invest in chicken but only in eggs; not to involve itself in building a Hindu worldview but to continue focusing on empty locomotion.

Today, 24 years later, no Hindu force has invested anything at all in rectifying India’s history. In about 2002, HRM Minister M. M. Joshi had the history textbooks rewritten, only to prove for all to see the incompetence of most people he picked for the job. (Notice, Prof. Jha, that Arun Shourie was not involved in this operation either.) The secularists had no problem in overruling this reform, and no Hindu force deigned to address the question: “What have we done wrong?” They only went on wailing about the daring injustice perpetrated by the secularists without ever wondering what they themselves could have done or could still do. Hindu moneybags who like to show off their commitment to Hinduism, finance large temple-building projects or sponsor their declared enemies, but never think of financing the research that Hindu society badly needs. And so, bad but highly-placed historians like D. N. Jha can go on rubbishing Hindu history.

» Dr Koenraad Elst studied at the KU Leuven, obtaining MA degrees in Sinology, Indology and Philosophy. After a research stay at Benares Hindu University he did original fieldwork for a doctorate on Hindu nationalism, which he obtained magna cum laude in 1998. As an independent researcher he earned laurels and ostracism with his findings on hot items like Islam, multiculturalism and the secular state, the roots of Indo-European, the Ayodhya temple/mosque dispute and Mahatma Gandhi’s legacy. He blogs at http://koenraadelst.blogspot.in/

Eminent Historians


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,141 other followers