Few decades back, at Aligarh Muslim University (AMU), Prof Irfan Habib summoned his former student and now faculty member K. K. Muhammed to his office. Muhammed had discovered Ibādat Khāna in Fatepur Sikri. Built by Akbar in 1575 CE, the Ibādat Khāna was the place where various religious scholars held discussions. A major discovery, this was reported in various newspapers, something which Prof Habib was not too happy about. The conversation went as follows:
Irfan Habib: “This is not Ibādat Khāna”
Muhammed: “No? This is not Ibādat Khāna?”
IH: “What you gave in Times of India is not Ibādat Khāna”
M: “How can you say that? Are you an archaeologist?”
IH: “I may not be as good an archaeologist like you”
M: “Sorry, you are not an archaeologist.” Irfan Habib was speechless.
Habib pushed a paper to Muhammed and said, “write what you discovered is not Ibādat Khāna”. Muhammed refused and walked away.
After working both at AMU and the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) in various designations, K. K. Muhammed has now written an autobiography in Malayalam titled, ഞാനെന്ന ഭാരതീയൻ (Me, the Indian), which has details of his encounters with Prof Habib and his cabal. As part of his education, Mr Muhammed learned how a historian becomes secular.
When Muhammed reached AMU as a student, he was initially excited to have someone as famous as Prof. Habib as his teacher. Muhammed recollects, “As a teacher, he did not make any impact on me.” His other classmates too had similar opinion. This news reached Habib’s ears. Muhammed ran for the Student’s Union as a Congressman. This too did not go well with the Marxists and they decided to contain him. This would cause various encounters between the Irfan Habib group and Muhammed and they are detailed in the first few chapters of the book.
Due to some Machiavellian maneuvers by the Marxists, Muhammed did not get admission as a researcher and hence opted for archaeology. After completing his post-graduate diploma in archaeology, he returned to AMU. He thanks Habib for blocking his path, because it led him to archaeology where he made a name for himself by discovering not just the Ibādat Khāna, but also a Christian church Akbar had built for the missionaries.
The Marxist attack came in multiple ways. First, they tried to prove that the discovery was not Muhammed’s. That failed. The second attack claimed that if Muhammed had discovered this, then it could not be the Ibādat Khāna. Soon after that Habib became the Head of the Department and that’s when the direct confrontation mentioned earlier happened.
Muhammed was a Communist sympathizer, but what he encountered in the campus was a new form of it. The petty version. Muhammed writes that he could never get along with Irfan Habib.
Habib group could cause career damage. They controlled the purse strings: they could decide who got scholarships or who would be admitted as researchers. If you were not part of his group, you were branded communal. Independent thinking was anathema. But if you joined his group, you became secular.
For this Muhammed cites the example of Prof Ramachandra Gaur, with whom he worked. An enemy of Habib, Prof Gaur was branded an RSS man. Once he became the Head of the Department, he changed his allegiance. Gaur also advised Muhammed that it was better to switch to Habib’s group for career advancement. Once Prof Gaur joined the Habib group, he was considered “secular”. Muhammed says, he refused to follow Gaur’s example.
Another encounter he mentions, occurred in front of an interview panel consisting of among others, the Vice Chancellor and Habib. During the interview, the Vice Chancellor said he could not consider anyone for AMU, who did not respect Prof Habib. Muhammed replied that respect has to be earned not demanded. He mentioned how a person who got less marks than him was admitted as a researcher. Another case was when someone with less marks and no post-graduate diploma was given the post of assistant archaeologist instead of him. Muhammed also had evidence against a false accusation that Irfan Habib had made. While Muhammed said all of this, Irfan Habib sat with his eyes down. Muhammed, writes, “His behavior towards me changed, but I was sure he would stab me at the first opportunity”
Muhammed writes that Prof Habib preferred people who flattered him like Makkan Lal. Prof Habib tried to get Prof Makkan Lal as the deputy director instead of Muhammed. When this was challenged by Muhammed in court, Makkan Lal became an ally of Irfan Habib. Muhammed writes, “Unholy alliances are short lived”. By the time of the World Archaeology Congress in Delhi, the Habib group and Makkan Lal group were openly fighting and in the Babri Masjid dispute, Irfan Habib and Makkan Lal were on the opposite sides.
Muhammed was finally selected as the Deputy Superintending Archaeologist at the Archaeological Survey of India. According to Muhammed, Prof Habib met the Director General of ASI and asked him to reject Muhammed. The DG replied that it was a UPC selection and he did not have the power to reject it. Then Prof Habib had one final request. Don’t post him in Agra. (What if he discovers something else.) Muhammed was posted to Madras Circle. But he would visit AMU for lectures and then efforts were made to block them. The only place where they were successful in blocking him was at JNU (no big surprise there), but everywhere else Muhammed was able to speak freely.
In the foreward of the book, Prof M. G. S. Narayanan, too writes about Prof Habib. According to Prof MGS, Prof Habib has poisoned, not just history, but culture and social life by his narrow groupism, nepotism and treachery. At the same time, he writes that Prof Habib is a hard working person, but crafty. His group would threaten, cheat and would be part of various intrigues. Anyone who criticized this group would be branded a Hindutvavaadi and communalist. At the same time, Prof MGS says, Prof Habib is not an Muslim fundamentalist. He is not sure even if he is a believer. Prof MGS attributes this group for making Babri Masjid a national issue.
According to Muhammed, it was during the Babri Masjid time that his mask of secularism came off. As the head of a government body (ICHR), he should not have taken sides in the dispute. People saw this as an effort to to increase his influence by taking sides with the Muslim side in the dispute. The one historian who had to courage to say that the head of ICHR should not take sides in the dispute was Prof M. G. S. Narayanan. Prof MGS initially had a great opinion of Prof Irfan Habib. He even disagreed with Muhammed on his opinion of Prof Habib, Once Prof MGS worked with Prof Habib in ICHR, he realized that truth of Muhammed’s statements. Not being able to work with Irfan Habib, he left ICHR. Very soon Prof MGS was branded with the Hindutva label.
These are just few select incidents from the first few chapters of the book. It is these petty people who get to define Indian history on if a Ram temple existed or if Saraswati flowed in India or in Afghanistan (see The Lost River). This is the price for continuing the British practice for having an “official” history. We have become bystanders while our history has been hijacked by Marxists like Prof Irfan Habib. – Varnam, 4 September 2016
» Jayakrishnan Nair is a history enthusiast.
Filed under: aligarh muslim university, archaeological survey of india, archaeology, history, india, indian scholars | Tagged: academic politics, aligarh muslim university, archaeology, ASI, irfan habib, k.k. muhammed, marxist historians | 1 Comment »
The Israelites were never subject to national enslavement in Egypt; but, as this new discovery reminds us, the land of Canaan was under the foot of Pharaonic authority. The long shadows of that experience might help explain why—in the absence of a historical Exodus—the biblical authors made the Egyptians the villains of their national epic. – Prof Candida Moss
When it comes to the prototypical villains of ancient literature, the Egyptians are right up there. Nobody, it seemed, really liked the ancient superpower. Ancient Greek romance novels routinely portray them as cunning and duplicitous. The Romans found Cleopatra to be equal parts captivating and conniving and, in the Bible, the Israelites were enslaved by the Pharaohs for centuries.
A new discovery at Tel Hazor, a UNESCO World Heritage Site and one of the largest Biblical-era archaeological sites in Israel, may change how we think about the Egyptians. During excavations last week, archeologists discovered a 4,000-year-old fragment of a large limestone statue of an Egyptian official. Only the lower section of the statue survives, but it includes the official’s foot and a few lines in Egyptian hieroglyphic script.
The preliminary study of the artifact has not yet been completed, so archaeologists do not even know the official’s name. Professor Amnon Ben-Tor of Hebrew University’s Institute of Archaeology, who has worked at the site for over 27 years, told the Jerusalem Post that it is likely that the statue was originally placed at the official’s tomb or in a temple.
So far Tel Hazor is the only archaeological site in the Levant to have yielded any large Egyptian statues from the second millennium BCE. The only other is a sphinx fragment of the Egyptian Pharaoh Menkaure (known to the Greeks as Mycerinus) that dates to the 25th century BCE. In the Amarna period—a period of Egyptian history when the royal residence shifted to Akhetaten and Egyptian religion temporarily shifted towards monotheistic worship of the sun god Aten—most of Canaan (what would later be Israel) was under Egyptian control. The latest finds are especially interesting because historians were unaware that Hazor was one of the Egyptian strongholds in this period or that there was ever an Egyptian official there.
What’s interesting about the Egyptian presence in Canaan in the second millennium is that it may make sense of one of the biggest mysteries of the Bible: Why does the Hebrew Bible highlight the oppression of the Israelites by Egypt when there is so little evidence for their enslavement there?
The story, as told in the Book of Exodus and Prince of Egypt, is that the Israelites came to Egypt because of famine. They initially prospered (think Joseph and his technicolor dreamcoat) only to be enslaved by later generations of Egyptians. There they remained until the birth of Moses, the 10 plagues, and the eventual emancipation of the Hebrews.
Scholars have been skeptical about the historicity of the Exodus for over 70 years. In the first place the Egyptians, who were fairly remarkable record keepers, never refer to a mass exodus of slaves or even a large group of runaway slaves. To this we might add the lack of evidence for either a slaughter of Hebrew infant boys or the 10 plagues that befell the Egyptian people (during which the eldest son of every Egyptian family dies overnight). There’s also no mention of Moses, even though his name is Egyptian in origin. Finally there’s no archaeological evidence to support the idea of a mass exodus of people. When large groups of people traveled in the pre-eco-friendly age they left behind trash, and a lot of it. But there’s no archaeological evidence for mass migration from Egypt to Israel: no pottery shards or Hebrew carvings.
All of which is to say that if there was a historical enslavement in and subsequent exodus from Egypt it is highly unlikely that it was on the scale of the Biblical account. Perhaps small groups escaped slavery and came to the land that would become Israel, but certainly not 600,000 men (plus wives and children). Modern scholars like David Wolpe have been strongly attacked for making this argument, but, as Wolpe himself notes, this evidence doesn’t negate the claims of modern Jews to the land of Israel.
But it does raise an interesting historical question: If the Exodus didn’t take place on an epic Charlton Heston scale, how does Egyptian oppression come to feature so prominently in the biblical narrative? When the story of the exodus was written down in the first millennium, the Israelites wouldn’t have had any direct experience of Egyptian power for hundreds of years; in the meantime, the great empires of Assyria and Babylonia had come to power, drastically overshadowing any threat from Egypt. Why make the Egyptians the villains of the piece?
Perhaps the biblical description of dominance by Egyptians actually has very little to do with enslavement and more to do with the cultural memory of the more distant Amarna period in Canaan. The Israelites were never subject to national enslavement in Egypt; but, as this new discovery reminds us, the land of Canaan was under the foot of Pharaonic authority. The long shadows of that experience might help explain why—in the absence of a historical Exodus—the biblical authors made the Egyptians the villains of their national epic. – The Daily Beast, 31 July 2016
» Candida Moss is Professor of New Testament and Early Christianity on the theology faculty of the University of Notre Dame in South Bend, Indiana.
“The Saraswati is mentioned in the Rg-Veda as a mighty sea-going river, but subsequently it shrank so that in the Mahabharata it appears as an ordinary river that runs dead in the desert. Even then it retained some of its Vedic aura, for Krishna’s brother Balarama went on pilgrimage to sites along the river including its locus of disappearance. The number and size of the city ruins along its riverbed warrant the renaming of “Indus civilization” as “Indus-Sarasvati civilization”. Danino surveys all the geological, archaeological and philological data pertaining to this river’s history in great detail.”- Dr Koenraad Elst
Michel Danino is a scholar of Jewish-Moroccan origin born in 1956 in Honfleur, France, and settled in Tamil Nadu since 1977. He is a practising environmentalist involved in saving forests, and editor and translator of several books by or concerning Sri Aurobindo and The Mother. In booklets published over the last two decades, he took up the revision of ancient Indian history where Aurobindo’s former secretary, K. D. Sethna (recently deceased at age 107) had left it. In The Invasion That Never Was (2000) he went over the classical arguments in favour of the Aryan Invasion Theory (AIT) and found them wanting. In his view, there is no solid evidence for the official belief that the Vedas were written in 1500-1200 BC by a recently-immigrated people that brought the Indo-Aryan languages into India from the Northwest. In 2006, an updated French edition was brought out by France’s most prestigious classics publisher Les Belles Lettres. His latest book, The Lost River: On the Trail of the Sarasvatī, has been published by Penguin, as mainstream as you can get. Questioning the AIT may be off limits in JNU and Harvard, but sizable sections of the scholarly world are opening up to the possibility that the long-established theory may not be the gold standard after all.
In the 11 chapters and 357 pages of this book, Danino zooms in on a crucial section of the evidence body concerning ancient Indian history, both Vedic and Harappan, viz. the Sarasvati river. This river is mentioned in the Rg-Veda as a mighty sea-going river, but subsequently it shrank so that in the Mahabharata it appears as an ordinary river that runs dead in the desert. Even then it retained some of its Vedic aura, for Krishna’s brother Balarama went on pilgrimage to sites along the river including its locus of disappearance. The number and size of the city ruins along its riverbed warrant the renaming of “Indus civilization” as “Indus-Sarasvati civilization”. Danino surveys all the geological, archaeological and philological data pertaining to this river’s history in great detail.
In recent years, the waters of the debate have been muddied by Harvard Sanskritist Michael Witzel c.s. who have tried to identify the very use of the name Sarasvati in the term “Indus-Sarasvati civilization” with Hindu nationalism, and who have mocked the claim that the Sarasvati survives in present-day rivers, principally the Ghaggar in Haryana. In fact, as Danino demonstrates with a string of quotations from primary sources, this identification is the object of a wide consensus, starting in 1840 with H. H. Wilson, and including such paragons of Indologist orthodoxy as F. Max Müller and M. Monier-Williams as well as the on-the-spot explorer Aurel Stein. Even the “Hindu nationalist claim” that the river dwindled as a consequence of tectonic events causing the course of its tributaries Yamuna and Satlej to shift away from the Sarasvati basin, turns out to be quite old and mainstream, starting with R. D. Oldham in 1886. Indeed, the ancient geographer Strabo already noted that seismic instability caused changes in the course of major rivers in India.
So, Danino has every right to bypass and disregard the polemical atmosphere in which some champions of the AIT have tried to drown the Sarasvati evidence. Especially because the latest findings are only confirming the river’s importance in Vedic and Harappan history.
In a recent lecture at the University of Ghent, Belgium, on the state of the art in Harappan excavations and the emerging picture of the “Indus” civilization, Cambridge (UK) archaeologist Cameron Petrie showed, next to his own map, a map of excavation sites used by Michel Danino in The Lost River, which Petrie called “a popular book”. By this he did not mean that it was a bestseller nor that it was much read and quoted; it was too recently published to speak of sales figures nor of citation indexes; only that it was written by a non-academic, obviously tapping into the outdated impression that the questioning of the prevailing theory is only the doing of amateurs. Danino’s map shows a high concentration of Harappan sites along the Ghaggar river, i.e. the remains of the once-mighty Sarasvati; but Petrie’s map showed a paucity of sites in the same region. That looked like a serious anomaly. But the very next item in his talk reversed this impression. He reported on an as yet unpublished survey of Haryana by a Ph.D. candidate from Rohtak who during 2008-10 identified “hundreds” of unexcavated Harappan sites. The student’s map showed a concentration of “new” sites precisely in the “empty” Ghaggar region. Did it not dawn on Petrie that this finding made his own textbook map dated while Danino’s proved up-to-date? Of the 3781 Harappan sites identified so far, 2378 are located around the Sarasvati river, from Haryana and northern Rajasthan to the Cholistan desert in southwestern Panjab .
Petrie didn’t break the consensus among archaeologists that proof for the AIT is lacking. Prof. B. B. Lal, who had made his name in the 1950s and 60s by detailing our knowledge of the Painted Grey Ware and identifying it as characteristic of the invading Aryans moving deeper into India, later repudiated any claims of an Aryan invasion, noting that no archaeological trace of an Aryan invasion has ever been found or identified. Prof. Michael Witzel has likewise admitted that “as yet” no archeological evidence of an Aryan invasion has been discovered. Petrie himself, as a field archaeologist freshly returned from the most recent excavations, agreed that he too had no sensational discovery to announce, of actual pieces of evidence for an Aryan invasion. So: as of 2011, after many decades of being the official and much-funded hypothesis, the Aryan Invasion Theory has still not been confirmed by even a single piece of material proof.
That said, AIT skeptics should accept the burden of outlining and proving an alternative scenario that can explain the “Indo-European” linguistic commonalities between South Asia and Europe, viz. an emigration from India. So far, nobody in India has taken this challenge: Indians are satisfied that Indo-Aryan language and culture did not originate outside India but don’t have the ambition to show or even claim that conversely, most European languages ultimately came from India. “Out-of-India Theory”, the term commonly used for the denial of the AIT, is a term virtually without object in India, applying only to the work of non-archaeologists S. S. Misra and Shrikant Talageri. However, as an honorary Indian, Danino does take it upon himself to discharge another obligation on AIT skeptics, viz. to refute the impression of a sharp discontinuity between Harappan culture and post-Harappan culture with a fresh review of the archaeological data.
Orthodox academics like Prof. Romila Thapar and Prof. Shereen Ratnagar insist that all the typical features of Harappan culture disappeared in the early 2nd millennium BC to make way for what Sir Mortimer Wheeler used to call “the Vedic Dark Age”. Danino details how among archaeologists, not just most Indians but also Westerners like Jean-François Jarrige and Jim Shaffer, a new consensus has emerged, viz. that the high Harappan age was followed by a localization phase, with a devolution of the more unitary culture into different local cultures. And even after the Harappan building style disappeared, ca. 1300 BC, many Harappan-attested elements persisted down to the historical age (1st millennium BC) and sometimes even down to the present. From the town-planning grids and measurement system to the motifs on Harappan seals and on the much later punch-marked coins, numerous types of material continuity are in evidence from early Harappan days. The tale of the Crow and the Fox, still told by Indian grandmothers and also retold in the French fable collection by Jean de la Fontaine, was already depicted on a potsherd from Lothal ca. 4500.
Danino’s argument, while unusually convincing because of the wide array of data mustered, is not really revolutionary. It is only in the noxious atmosphere imposed on the AIT debate by some shrill polemicists both in India and the US that the continuity between Harappan and post-Harappan cultures becomes a daring proposition. In fact, in cooler times many prominent scholars have spoken out to the same effect. Art historian Stella Kramrisch noted the similarity between the art of Mohenjo Daro and contemporary folk art. Already in 1931, Sir John Marshall observed that the Harappan religion must have been “so characteristically Indian as hardly to be distinguished from still living Hinduism”. By bringing all such findings together, Danino takes the case against an invader-induced post-Harappan rupture back out of the margins. – Koenraad Elst Blog, 20 July 2015
Filed under: archaeology, history, india, indus valley civilisation, sanskrit literature, saraswati river | Tagged: archaeology, aryan invasion theory, ghaggra-hakra river, indus valley civilisation, michel danino, out of india theory, saraswati river, sindhu saraswati civilization | 1 Comment »
Rakhigarhi, or Rakhi Garhi (Hindi: राखीगढ़ी; Rakhi Shahpur + Rakhi Khas), is a village in Hisar District in the state of Haryana in India, situated in the north-west about 150 kilometers from Delhi. In 1963, archaeologists discovered that this place was the site of the largest known city of the Indus-Sarasvati civilization, much larger and ancient than Harappa and Mohenjodaro sites. It is situated on the dry bed of the Sarasvati river, which is believed to have once flown through this place and dried up by 2000 BC. According to the archaeologists, Rakhigarhi is an ideal nucleus from where the Harappan civilisation began in the Ghaggar basin in Haryana and gradually grew from here and slowly expanded to the Indus valley.” – Wikipedia
The Indus Valley civilisation, popularly known as Harappan civilisation, has been a puzzle for several decades now. But with the ongoing excavation in Rakhigarhi, history is on the verge of being rewritten.
“After Rakhigarhi, we can say that the Harappan civilisation was at least 1,000 years older than earlier thought.
“And contrary to our long-held, conventional understanding, it first emerged in the east and then moved west, originating as it did in the heart of the Ghaggar-Hakra basin, regarded by many as the place where the Saraswati once flowed,” says Vasant Shinde, vice-chancellor of Deccan College who heads the team of archeologists — the largest Harappan site overtaking Mohenjo-daro in Pakistan’s Sind province.
What’s going to ruffle quite a few feathers, is Harappa’s supposed Saraswati connection, especially the way the drying up of one probably led to the decline of the other.
Shinde says that prior to his excavation it was believed that Rakhigarhi had all the three phases of the Harappan culture – ‘Early’, ‘Mature’ and ‘Late’.
“Our work proves that this place doesn’t have the Late Harappan phase. It collapsed around 2000 BC,” says he, adding: “I believe Rakhigarhi’s sudden demise can be explained with the drying up of the Saraswati in 2000 BC.”
Shinde’s claim is supported by Amarendra Nath, former ASI archaeology director who had carried out an excavation in Rakhigarhi between 1997 and 2000.
“The ASI has so far discovered over 2,000 Harappan sites spread over Punjab, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan and Gujarat.
“Of these, about 1,400 can be located in the Saraswati belt alone, while the Indus belt doesn’t have more than 300-400 sites,” he says, adding: “We, in the ASI, had reached this conclusion long back. It’s just that this information is coming out now.”
But not everyone is impressed. A Delhi University professor, wishing to remain anonymous, thinks this entire saga can only be analysed through the politico-ideological prism, rather than the academic.
“For me, Saraswati is a mythical river and nothing more. It’s not a mere coincidence that all these things are coming up soon after the BJP came to power.
“It’s an attempt to rewrite the history, the Aryan history,” says he.
Shinde seems circumspect on the Aryan migration issue.
“It’s for historians to decide. But as an archeologist, I can say with confidence that for at least 7,000 years, there has been no migration into this region.
“You go to the village today, and you will feel you are walking through the same, old Harappan civilisation thriving 5,000 years ago. The style of pottery is similar. So are the food habits,” he says.
“There will always be a set of historians who will continue to deny the existence of the Saraswati — to meet their ideological and personal requirements.
“They can afford to do that as history can be interpretational. (But) Not archaeology, which is based on solid evidences and facts.
“And evidences for long have been supporting the existence of the Saraswati in the region. Satellite imageries have proved beyond doubt the existence of a ‘mighty’ river drying up 4,000 years ago,” Nath says.
“If we accept the Vedic hymns’ description of a river flowing from the mountain to the sea and located between the Yamuna and Sutlej, the Ghaggar remains the sole candidate.
“But as we now know, this description can only apply to the third millennium BCE or earlier, an epoch that does not fit with the conventional scenario of a second millennium Aryan migration into India,” says the French author. Nath has a solution to bridge this ‘historical’ divide.
“Why don’t the historians objecting to our claims set up their own body of archeologists and excavate these sites? Facts don’t change with the change of experts.
“Sadly, they won’t come up with such initiatives,” he says.
“This time we have ensured skeletons don’t get contaminated. We would know for the first time what the Harappans looked like, what they ate, what was the colour of their skin or hair, etc. It will add a new perspective to the Harappan study,” says he. – Mail Online India, 22 May 2015
Filed under: archaeological survey of india, archaeology, hindu, history, india, national culture, saraswati river, sindhu saraswati civilization | Tagged: archaeological survey of india, archaeology, hindu civilization, rakhigarhi, saraswati river, sindhu saraswati civilization | 1 Comment »
“Mr Habib’s apprehension is that the Indus valley civilisation, whose two major cities, Mohenjo Daro and Harappa now lie in Pakistan, could be renamed as Saraswati civilisation. Mr Habib must know that the moment Saraswati river’s existence was proved, both Mohenjo Daro and Harappa were gone. Since blood is thicker than water, Mr Habib is sad that Pakistan lost its significance.” – Kumar Chellappan
Whenever there is a change of Government at the Centre and the BJP comes to power, it is not the Congress or the factions of the Janata Dal who get upset and create panic. Instead, it is the self-styled intellectuals, especially a section of historians and their political masters, the Leftists, who are not at ease. What concerns them is the fear of losing control over the Indian Council of Historical Research and related organisations, which has been monopolised by them for a long time now. The ICHR takes care of their material needs.
This was proved by the apprehensions expressed by the Leftist historians and their puppeteers when the Union Government, appointed Mr Yellapragada Sudershan Rao, as the Chairperson of the ICHR. The Leftists wanted the ICHR to be governed by a person of their choice. The fact that Mr Rao has been a professor of history for more than four decades and has authored acclaimed articles in international journals has not cut ice with them. To be acceptable to them, the historian had to publish research papers in peer-reviewed journals. All of these peer-reviewed journals in India are controlled by the same Leftist historians who act as a coterie. But there is no need to go in-depth into this subject. A reading of Eminent Historians by Mr Arun Shourie will throw light on the modus operandi and intentions.
Irfan Habib, the octogenarian Left historian who is a former ICHR Chairperson, has questioned the claims of Hindutva forces that there was a river by the name of Saraswati. What provoked Mr Habib was the BJP-led Haryana Government’s move to re-create the Saraswati river, an issue which is of great sentimental value for the Hindus because this river finds a mention in the Vedas as well as in the great epics. In an article published in a leading South Indian daily [The Chindu], more known for its CPI(M) leanings, Mr Habib rules out the theory that there was a river by the name of Saraswati. Mr Habib, known more as a Marxist historian, describes those who believe in the existence of Saraswati river as Sangh parivar intellectuals.
For Mr Habib, what matters is the observations of Rudolf von Roth, a German professor of Oriental languages, and Heinrich Zimmer, a German-born historian of South Asian art, who were not convinced about the river Saraswati. The octogenarian professor quotes Ms Marie-Agnes Courty of the European Centre for Prehistoric Research, who rules out the presence of any large river coming down from the Himalayas. But Ms Courty told this author that she does not rule out the existence of seasonal water streams originating from the Siwalik Hills. Advancements in science and technology, along with geology and hydrology, have proved that there was a river by the name of Saraswati.
Scholars in Sanskrit who have read all the great works related to Indian heritage, strongly believe that the river Saraswati meandered from the Himalayas through the north Indian States and joined the Arabian Sea at the Rann of Kutch in Gujarat. These scholars include S. Kalyanaraman whose comprehensive volume Sarasvati is rated as a landmark work, K. S. Valdiya, an archaeologist of international repute, and internationally acclaimed scientists like S. M. Rao and K. M. Kulkarni (Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Trombay).
Mr Rao is not a specialist in any Oriental language but a physicist who is an authority on radio isotopes, materials known for testing the origin of elements, materials, mountains, rivers, seas, soil and what not. In addition to these experts, remote sensing scientists like J. R. Sharma and B. K. Bhadra of the Indian Space Research Organisation have proved, beyond doubt, that the Saraswati flowed through the Indian sub-continent.
Mr Habib must know, one can manipulate history and literature to a certain extent, but scientific findings cannot be defeated. He should read the archaeological findings of Mr Rafique Mughal, an archaeologist from Pakistan, who discovered hundreds of sites in Cholistan and referred to Sutlej, Ghaggar-Hakra and also Saraswati. For Mr Mughal (now a professor in Boston University), the Saraswati is not a myth.
In addition, Mr Michel Danino, an Indian author, originally from France has written The Lost River: On The Trail of the Sarasvati. What Mr Habib missed in his article was the scientific research done by the scientists of the Indian Space Research Organisation, the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Trombay and the Geological Survey of India.
Messers J. R. Sharma and B. K. Bhadra of ISRO’s Regional Remote Sensing Centre, Jodhpur, discovered the paleochannels of the vedic river using Remote Sensing and Global Information System techniques. “Data from the Indian Remote Sensing Satellite was used to delineate the buried palaeochannels through image processing techniques in parts of Haryana, Punjab, Rajasthan and Gujarat. The discovered river course has been validated with ground information like historical maps, archaeological sites, hydrogeology, sedimentology, drilling (litholog) and geochronological data,” said Mr Bhadra about the work he and Mr Sharma did to prove the existence of Saraswati.
Mr Habib got annoyed when the Haryana Government decided to drill tubewells along the course of the Saraswati traced by Mr Bhadra and Mr Sharma. “Drilling of tubewells on the palaeochannels shows the availability of large quantity of potable water which may be tapped as groundwater source in the water striven Thar desert,” said Mr Bhadra. Mr Habib’s anger is understandable as his political masters, though irrelevant in Indian politics, do not subscribe to the theory that perennial water shortage in India can be resolved by reviving the Saraswati.
Messrs S. M. Rao and K. M. Kulkarni, two senior scientists of the Isotope Chemistry Division of the BARC too proved by radio isotope studies that there was a river named Saraswati which flowed through the Indian sub-continent about 10,000 years ago. Along with Messrs A. K. Gupta and G. Sreenivasan, their colleagues in RRSC, Mr Sharma and Mr Bhadra have found that the river disappeared in 3,000 BC due to climatic and tectonic changes.
Mr Habib’s apprehension is that the Indus valley civilisation, whose two major cities, Mohenjo Daro and Harappa now lie in Pakistan, could be renamed as Saraswati civilisation. Mr Habib must know that the moment Saraswati river’s existence was proved, both Mohenjo Daro and Harappa were gone. Since blood is thicker than water, Mr Habib is sad that Pakistan lost its significance.
These ‘eminent historians’, with the active help of their Communist masters have succeeded in distorting Indian history. It all began with Indira Gandhi, the former Prime Minister, enlisting the services of Gopalaswami Parthasarathi, a diplomat-turned-advisor to the Nehru-Gandhi family to bring on board historians and social scientists who would go on to distort the country’s past history to suit her political convenience. – The Pioneer, 6 May 2015
» Kumar Chellappan is a senior journalist with The Pioneer based in Chennai.
Filed under: archaeology, india, indology, indus valley civilisation, marxism, psychological warfare, saraswati river | Tagged: ghaggra-hakra river, ICHR, indian history, indus valley civilisation, irfan habib, marxist historians, saraswati river, sindhu saraswati civilization | 9 Comments »
“I was professionally embarrassed for Irfan Habib regarding his lack of scholarly research, when thirteen years ago, he made this uniformed comment, ‘It matters little that the ‘mighty Sarasvati’ supposedly flowing down to the sea through the desert is a sheer figment of the imagination with no support from geography or geology.’ (Outlook, February 13, 2002.) Back then, I wrote: ‘these are very strong words for a respected historian to use when there is overwhelming documented scientific evidence that a huge river did flow in that part of western India 3800 years ago.’” – Dr Yvette Rosser
In the 17 April edition of The Hindu, a sarcastically penned article, printed prominently at the top of the page in the Opinion-Comment section, titled “Searching for Saraswati”, was written by the renowned historian, Professor Irfan Habib.
The attached cartoon reminded me of an article I wrote in 2003, titled “Ostriches and Archaeologists”, which discussed the long-standing disputes between a vocal group of Indian historians (formally self-identified as Marxist historians, but since the fall of the USSR, now calling themselves ‘progressives’) versus the Archaeological Survey of India (aka: mainstream Indian archaeologists).
My humorous title, “Ostriches and Archaeologists” reflected the absurdity that archaeologists are digging in the earth to discover historical artifacts, while this group of historians, colleagues of Professor Habib, have their heads buried in the sand refusing to look at the emerging evidence regarding the discovery of the paleo-geographic river bed of the long-dried up Saraswati River, as well condemning as other pre-modern (aka: Medieval) archaeological excavations.
In 2003, I vetted a copy of that article, “Ostriches and Archaeologists” to Professor B. B. Lal, who is often referred to as the father of Indian archaeology. Months later, I visited him at his home and his son who is a pilot and an officer in the Indian air force said to me that he hadn’t realized that his father, an octogenarian scholar, was a revolutionary. I replied with the famous quote, that in times of deceit and cover-up, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
In my research regarding India’s Social Sciences a dozen years ago, under the heading “Historiography in the Headlines” I noted that there was a vocal group of historians in India, who for decades have used the mainstream media to further their causes, while consistently refusing to look at archaeological evidence. Irfan Habib was among the usual signatories who critiqued not only archaeologists, but their material finds as well. Even the artifacts were condemned as communal and saffron, if they incidentally lent credence to the ancientness of Dharmic traditions.
Artifacts are not saffron unless they were buried in ochre colored soil for a few thousand years. Facts are not Saffron, unless you are afraid of them and hope to sarcastically trivialize the emerging data, which Habib does like a seasoned pro. Using the reducto ad absurdum fallacy to reduce the argument to the absurd, converting an intellectual debate into a lopsided political one and avoiding the facts by ridiculing the supposed ‘intention’ and source of the data, Professor Habib’s critique was mostly political with very few historical considerations.
Instead of talking about merits of the case his strategy was to be distracted by side issues, bringing up controversies then changing the topic, and by sleight of word, Habib uses a bait-and-switch methodology to avoid the real issues at hand.
For reasons tied up with ideological predispositions, there is a group of very vocal historians in India who have staked their professional careers against the research emerging from IVC sites in western India. These professors fight pitched battles in the media and on the Internet to oppose the very existence, much less the evolving nomenclature of the Sindhu-Saraswati culture. Yet, strangely, despite being supposedly objective academicians, they are operating in complete denial of archaeological and other contemporary scientific data. For some strange reasons that are very detrimental to India’s social sciences, these historians’ minds are closed to dispassionate examination of contemporary historiographical research.
I was professionally embarrassed for Irfan Habib regarding his lack of scholarly research, when thirteen years ago, he made this uniformed comment, “It matters little that the ‘mighty Sarasvati’ supposedly flowing down to the sea through the Desert is a sheer figment of the imagination with no support from geography or geology.” (Outlook February 13, 2002.) Back then, I wrote: “These are very strong words for a respected historian to use when there is overwhelming documented scientific evidence that a huge river did flow in that part of western India 3800 years ago.”
More than a decade ago, being thus astonished, I commented that “perhaps Professor Habib can be excused for not being up to date in paleogeology and satellite imaging, or even contemporary research on ancient Indian geographical history, since his specialty is Medieval India, but it is surprising that, being thusly uninformed, he has taken such a strong stand.”
You can well imagine how surprised I am when I witness, more than thirteen years later that Professor Habib has still not updated himself professionally. Yet ironically, he continues to use his valuable time to write op-ed pieces in the popular press condemning his archaeological ‘others’—a sad testament to the sorry state of social sciences and historiography in India. After reading a random news report about some local water reclamation project in Haryana, Habib based his supposedly academically informed critique entirely on that scant bit of yellow journalism, and due to the dreaded saffron dominance in Haryana, Habib is overtly political in his critique. Facts be damned!
The only professional study to which Habib refers in this article is from the eighties. Whereas in the last thirty years there have been scores of scientifically sound research projects including paleogeological studies (with chemical analyses of soil samples), geographical studies, climatic studies, satellite imagery and landstat photography, isotope analyses, dozens of excavations by Indian and non-Indian archaeologists that support the hypothesis that there is a dried up riverbed of a great river that ran approximately where the seasonal rivers Ghaggar-Hakra now flow, as can be seen in satellite images. It ran down and around, heading in a southwesterly direction, wandering as rivers do over the millennia, from where it gained strength fed by other rivers, between the Yamuna and Sutlej, just where the ancient Hindu scriptures tell us this river used to run, and as Habib finally concedes in the last two paragraphs of his paper.
Ultimately, 4000 years ago, the legendary Saraswati River dried up due to tectonic activity and climatic changes, first slowly over centuries, forming numerous oxbow lakes before sinking into the sands of Rajasthan and disappearing into the sands of time.
Contrary to Habib’s claim in The Hindu, the Saraswati didn’t emerge from a ditch in Haryana, but as actually mentioned in the article upon which he based his critique, and in countless other documentations, the Saraswati originated in the Himalayas, where it emerged from the “foothills of the Shivaliks in the Adi Badri area” which is between Dharmasala and Simla. Hardly a “nullah” in Haryana!
In fact, recent research of soil samples in the Rann of Kutch and where the Saraswati emptied into the Arabian Sea have found Himalayan sand particles, particular to Uttaranchal in the sedimentary composition. These tests were conducted years after the 1980’s era study cited by Habib in The Hindu.
In Habib’s characterization, he sarcastically suggested the BJP government in Haryana should dig ‘two or three tube wells … to create an official spring.” Habib is confused as to the course of the ancient river. He should actually know this bit of geographic knowledge since he is an Indian historian who continually writes about this issue in the media! He knows well that the Saraswati ran between the Yamuna and Sutlej as mentioned prominently in the Vedas and other historical Sanskrit texts and has can be seen on a modern landstat map.
Seemingly, Habib cannot overcome the fact that in contemporary India, there is no roaring and raging Saraswati River running between the Yamuna and Sutlej, where the Saraswati was located. But I urge Professor Habib to visit the area and he would see that even today, the buried courses of the Saraswati still yield sub-surface water in the Rajasthan desert. “This sub-surface water in the desert comes from the Himalayan precipitation that flows through the buried courses of the Saraswati. Since the meagre rainfall (150mm) in the Rajasthan desert cannot contribute substantially to the perennial supply of sub-surface water, it is the quietly flowing Saraswati under the sub-surface of earth that is the source of year-round sub-surface water.” Dr Kar adds, “Field investigation by the researchers confirmed the existence of buried courses of the Saraswati River. It has been found that the areas through which the Saraswati flowed supports lush green vegetation today even during the summer months in the desert. In fact, some wells dug along the buried course of the Saraswati have yielded sweet water only at 30 to 40 metres.” [Quote from: Dr Amal Kar, senior geomorphologist at the Central Arid Zone Research Institute (CAZRI) in Jodhpur.]
I urge Professor Habib to visit the area before he condemns it again. He may also see, like the senior geomorphologist at the Central Arid Zone Research Institute, what seems like “a miracle in the Thar desert!” Or maybe it is just an ancient dried up river that still exists in some capacity below ground. Professor Habib may remember that after the dreadful earthquake in Bhuj in 2001, a spring opened up in the desert and clear fresh water flowed for days. There are many such stories across that broad area, from decade to decade, that report the emergence of a spring even after a mild earthquake.
But Professor Habib mocks the whole issue and dismisses the arguments and lumps all the informed and involved scholars into some kind of saffron stew that need not be heeded by the readers of The Hindu. He also seemingly dismisses satellite photography. No wonder for the last five millennia, Hindus thought that the Saraswati River must be mythical since they couldn’t find it on a map. Through the centuries, the popular lore considered that this non-existent, mythical Saraswati River, praised so prominently in the Rg Veda must be an underground river and it was presumed to meet the Ganga and the Yamuna at Prayag, in Professor Habib’s backyard. That old myth of an underground Saraswati has been demolished by contemporary research. A Times News article on June 15, 2002, stated that Habib, who “has written extensively on Saraswati, feels the exercise is a ‘waste of money.’” Then why, decade after decade, does Professor Habib continue to sensationalize the Saraswati and keep on writing ‘historiography in the headlines’ harping on a topic he refuses to research?
Near to the end of his editorial comments in The Hindu, Habib cited Heinrich Zimmer for advocating the concept that the Saraswati is not an independent river but actually another name for the Indus. Heinrich Zimmer, whose excellent books on Indian art were published posthumously by Joseph Campbell passed away in 1943, decades before either the paleo-geological studies or satellite photography revealed the existence of the Saraswati River. 
To conclude his tirade directed towards researchers excavating along the banks of the Saraswati River, Professor Habib knowledgeably cites the verses in the Rig Veda where the Saraswati is mentioned and other relevant Sanskrit texts, such as the Panchavimsha Brahmana and the Manusmriti, where “Brahmavarta corresponds exactly to Haryana.”
In his final, strangely-worded sentence Habib writes, “From ancient tradition itself we thus have a depiction of the Saraswati that mocks neither geography nor history.” If that is true, why then did Professor Habib write an entire article that mocks the scientists researching the Saraswati River? Why, then, after all these decades didn’t he do his research? He would know that no scholars are trying to ‘stretch’ the Saraswati to pass below Allahabad. Obviously, purposes other than those of reason and common sense are at work guiding Irfan Habib’s perspectives.
Scholars researching the Saraswati River have embraced this relevant quote by Mahatma Gandhi: “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.” Ultimately, research regarding the Saraswati River will continue moving forward and Professor Habib will prattle on in the popular press about saffron artifacts. The sheer volume of the evidences will win the argument. – IndiaFacts, 23 April 2015
- That article “Ostriches and Archaeologists” emerged from my PhD dissertation, which was an investigation of historiographical approaches used in India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. My dissertation: “Curricula as Destiny: Forging National Identities in India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh”, compared secondary Social Studies textbooks in India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh, three countries with thousands of years of shared history but very different contemporary perspectives of those events. Among resulting publications: Islamization of Pakistani Social Studies Textbooks, RUPA, New Delhi, 2003. (See this review: http://ic-edu.blogspot.com/2009/03/book-review-islamisation-of-pakistani.html)
- Myths and Symbols in Indian Art and Civilization by Heinrich Zimmer. Edited by Joseph Campbell (1946).
» Dr Yvette Rosser first visited India in 1970, where she met Neem Karoli Baba who advised her to go to graduate school. She subsequently attended the University of Texas at Austin, where her Master’s thesis in the Department of Asian Studies examined the treatment of India in the social studies curriculum and how India and Hinduism are described in academic treatments. Her 2003 Ph.D. dissertation, Curriculum as Destiny: Forging National Identity in India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh, is a study of the politics of history in South Asia.
Filed under: archaeology, india, indology, indus valley civilisation, marxism, psychological warfare, saraswati river | Tagged: ASI, b.b. lal, ghaggra-hakra river, indian history, indus valley civilisation, irfan habib, marxist historians, saraswati river, sindhu saraswati civilization, yvette rosser | 4 Comments »