Title: Putting history
in proper context
Author: Virendra Parekh
Publication: The Observer
Of Business And Politics
Date: February 25, 2000
One thing is common to
mullahs, missionaries and Marxists. Whenever they are given a dose of their
own medicine, they call it a foul play. No wonder, the secularist lobby
dominated by their friends is incensed. The decision of the Indian Council
of Historical Research to withdraw from publication two volumes, penned
by Marxist historians K. N. Panikkar and Sumit Sarkar, pertaining to the
freedom struggle has incurred its wrath. ICHR chairman B R Grover has clarified
that the withdrawal is only temporary and meant to check the manuscripts
for possible inaccuracies and omissions. He has pointed out that ICHR has
in the past withdrawn volumes, even after their publication, for similar
reasons.
This has not pacified
the secularist lobby. It has wasted no time in condemning this 'hard evidence
of a deep-seated conspiracy to saffronise Indian history'. The eminent
historians who wrote the books concerned feel slighted. Striking a pose
of outraged innocence, secularist newspapers have sermonised the government
on the dangers of tempering with history writing.
What is most remarkable
about the present controversy is the deliberate and total obliteration
of the context. The boot is on the other foot. Stalinist activists, masquerading
as historians, have deliberately and systematically distorted our history
to fit it into Marxist categories. Now when an attempt is being made to
expose their manipulation and falsification, we hear lectures on importance
of objectivity and dangers of state control in history writing.
Striking a pose of superiority
is the hallmark of this brand of historians. It is below their dignity
to discuss issues on merit. Aryan invasion theory, for example, has been
beaten hollow by incontrovertible evidence marshalled by scholars like
K D Sethna, Srikant Talageri, David Frawley, A Seidenberg and Navaratna
Rajaram among others. The new evidence collected by these scholars pertain
to literature, archaeology, anthropology, astronomy, metallurgy and mathematics.
It explains all the known facts much better. It points to the movement
of Aryans from India to other countries, standing the invasion theory on
its head.
The response of Marxist
historians to these new developments is either pointed indifference or
derision. "The latest entrants into the field (of history) are Indian scientists
from the US, who in the guise of using science and computers are now holding
forth on the Aryan problem. They are neither willing to acknowledge that
they know little about archaeology, history or linguistics, nor are they
willing to work with such specialists", wrote Romila Thapar. Notice the
arrogance, notice the disdain for scientific methods, notice the derailment
of issue by personalising it.
If looking at evidence
presented by others is below their dignity for Marxist historians, supplying
evidence in support of their own assertions is even more so. On 2 October
1986, twelve Marxist historians, led by Romila Thapar, wrote a letter to
the Times of India. They noted "with growing concern the recent tendency
in Tol to give a communal twist to news items". "The statement in your
news report that the site at Mathura is to be 'liberated' and handed over
to the 'rightful owners' as the birthplace of Krishna raises the question
of limits to logic of restoration of religious sites... How far back do
we go? Can we push this to the restoration of Buddhist and Jain monuments
destroyed by Hindus? Or pre-Hindu animist shrines?" wrote their eminences.
The indefatigable Site
Ram Goal prepared a questionnaire for these historians and sent It to Romila
Thapar. He requested them to produce, among other things, a list of epigraphs
and citations from Hindu literary sources which record the destruction
of Buddhist and Jain monuments and animist shrines by any Hindu, at any
time: the Hindu theology that says or even suggests that non-Hindu places
of worship should he destroyed, desecrated or plundered or which hails
such acts as pious or meritorious: a list of Buddhist or Jain monuments
and animist shrines which have been desecrated or destroyed or converted
into Hindu places of worship in the remote or recent past: the names and
places of Hindu monuments which stand on sites earlier occupied by Buddhist
or Jain monuments and animist shrines and a list of Hindu kings or commanders
whom Hindus have hailed as heroes for desecrating or destroying or converting
into Hindu places of worship any Buddhist or Jain monuments or animist
shrines.
However, he did not receive
even an acknowledgement from her, leave alone any comments from the points
raised In his letter. This was true to their form. Anyone who has audacity
to demand proof from their eminences is disqualified by that very act to
receive any attention from them.
Even when concrete evidence
of their lies, distortions and prejudices is documented in detail and pushed
under their nose, their response Is contemptuous (and contemptible) silence
or a shower of abuse. Arun Shourie has narrated at length what they have
done to history textbooks. The charges were specific, not vague or general.
The name of the author, the title of the book and page numbers were quoted
in every case. Shourie also gave concrete examples of their financial irregularities,
irresponsible behaviour and malpractices like theft of manuscripts with
a view to plagiarising them. His condemnation of their eminences was, in
a word, total. What was the response? "Arun Shourie is not a historian.
He is a mythologist of Hindu communalism. He is a political pornographer,"
declared K N Panikkar. Not one word about the issues raised.
This is the kind of people
who are insisting that whatever they write must be accepted as gospel,
that to check their works for inaccuracies and omissions is an insult,
that to question their presentation and interpretation of history is nothing
short of its falsification.
The question is: Having
brazened it out so far, why are they restless now? Answer: Because they
can see that the party will soon be over unless they put up a fight. They
could perpetrate and perpetuate their mischief so long as their ideology
was fashionable, rulers were benevolent and their fellow-travellers controlled
most of the important positions in universities and journalism.
But times have changed.
Intellectual fashions are changing, patronage of rulers is vanishing and
their Holy Books have become raddy-pasti. All that remains, or remained
until recently, is their hold on government institutions and the vast network
of fellow travellers, the former being the key to the latter. The recent
appointments to ICHR of independent historians and the move to restore
accountability In its functioning have sent shivers down their spines.
No longer will it be possible for them to drag on projects for decades,
fatten themselves on public funds and dispense patronage to cronies. India's
history establishment has long been controlled by people who are better
at politicising issues than historical research. No true history of India
can be written unless their influence is countered.
