HVK Archives: If you have the guts to stand up, there is a good response'
If you have the guts to stand up, there is a good response' - The Times of India
Sameera Khan
()
19 January 1997
Title : If you have the guts to stand up, there is a good response'
Author : Sameera Khan
Publication : The Times of India
Date : January 19, 1997
Like father, like son. Irfan Habib has spent a 'lifetime following
in his father's footsteps. Both his profession and favoured
ideology replicate those of his father, Mohammad Habib. If his
father was a noted historian at Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) in
the 1920s who was well-known for his affinity to Marxism, Irfan
Habib's own scholarship has been equally exemplary. His leftist
leanings are known to have involved him in pursuits other than
historical study or research - at AMU, he has valiantly fought
communal and criminal elements and played a crucial role in
unionising the university employees.
An internationally renowned scholar of medieval Indian history,
Habib's Agrarian System Of Mughal India, 1556-1707 and his 1982
publication, An Atlas Of The Mughal Empire, are considered
pioneering ventures in historical research. He taught at AMU for
more than 40 years until he was unceremoniously relieved of his
teaching assignments by university authorities last year.
As former chairman of both AMU's Centre for Advanced Study in
History and the Indian Council for Historical Research, Habib has
been an intrepid fighter for a secular and scientific approach to
history.
Currently editing the book, Akbar And His India, Habib was in
Mumbai last week to address a seminar organised by the
Mobile-Parikh Centre for the Visual Arts on '50 Years of Indian
Art'. In this interview, Habib speaks of the need to defend the
nation from the onslaught of communalism.
In our 50th year of Independence, we continue to he haunted by the
spectre of Partition. Could we have averted such a fate?
Perhaps. It will always remain unknown whether the Muslim League
could have obtained an equal success in the elections of 1946 if
there had been universal adult suffrage. The electorate then was
very small consisting of the urban middle-class, the zamindars and
the rich peasants. If Muslim landless labourers and craftsmen had
voted, it is quite possible that issues other than those of
communal identity would have played a greater role.
But I disagree with historians who suggest that enough political
concessions were not offered by Jawaharlal Nehru and the Congress
to the Muslim leadership of the time. The Congress offered them
parity. In fact, it almost reduced itself to an equal partner with
the Muslim League even though the League's total vote didn't even
come to half of the Congress' vote.
In my view, in 1947 no amount of political concessions would have
tided over the situation as the ideological battle had already been
lost. Muslim separatism was so strong ideologically that
ultimately the whole political structure was bound to crumble.
Yet, it was important that political concessions were made so that
if there was any chance, the unity and freedom of the country could
be preserved.
Do we face a similar ideological battle now in the '90s?
Yes, we do. In the '40s, the ideological battle was on two fronts.
One was against the Hindu Mahasabha or RSS ideology of 'Hindi,
Hindu, Hindustan' and the other was the attack on Muslim
separatism. At that time, the ideological effort against Muslim
separatist ideology was unsuccessful.
Now we are fighting the other position - the Hindu separatist
ideology. Essentially the grounds are the same. In a different
manner today, political alignments are important. I do believe
that the United Front should he supported and the RIP should be
prevented from coming into power. These political strategies are
important. But just as in 1947, an ideological effort against
Muslim separatism was essential, such an effort needs to be made
against Hindu separatism as well.
The ideological battle is central to the vision of India as a
nation state. Currently the communal offensive is very severe and
therefore other issues are now of secondary importance. The
preservation of the secular and modem character of the nation is
the central issue for the country.
In such a climate, is a scientific and secular approach to history
and archaeology under threat?
In history, the dominant trend is anti-communal. Historians
supporting a Hindutva version of history - who are willing to stand
up and say that the Rigveda was compiled in 4,500 BC, that the
Aryans went abroad from India, and that all mosques are built on
temple sites - are very few. Even at the height of the Babri
Masjid agitation, very few historians were willing to sign on the
VHP statements. The Indian History Congress (IHC), the major
professional organisation of historians, has always pushed strong
resolutions against a communal bias in history. These are all very
good signs and suggest that if you have guts to stand up, there is
a good response.
However, in archaeology, a reverse trend seems to prevail. Since
the late 1960s, there has been a tendency in the Archaeological
Survey of India (ASI), at first surreptitiously and then
increasingly openly, to champion the cause of Hindu chauvinism and
belittle medieval cultural monuments.
Is that why the Association for Study of History and Archaeology
(ASHA) was formed?
Yes. When one saw how the RSS took control of the World Archaeology
Congress in December 1994, we felt the need to form ASHA. We have
sought a review of the entire structure and functioning of the ASI
which we find absurdly biased. The quality of their work is
falling so low that almost nothing that they say can be believed.
In the case of sites such as Hastinapur and Bhagwanpura, their
scientific reports are biased and technically imperfect.
As a historian, how do you view the renaming of several cities on
allegedly historical grounds?
In the case of Bombay to Mumbai and Madras to Chennai, both names
used are historically correct. Mumbai was always the name used in
local and Mughal records and similarly Madras was Chennaipatnam in
Mughal records as well as in Tamil. There is no ideological or
religious tint in the renaming of these cities. But when you try to
rename Allahabad as Prayag, Aurangabad as Sambhajinagar, Ahmedabad
as Karnavati and Patna as Pataliputra - then of course, in all
these cases, you are ruling out a very large sector of your
history. This is an imposition of a religious outlook. It is the
misreading of your history, language and dialect. It shows no care
for your real past. Even where British names are being done away
with, British symbolism is being replaced with another false
symbolism.
Whether Pataliputra is where Patna stands today is conjecture. In
the case of Allahabad and Prayag there is a clear distinction -
Allahabad is the name of the fort and Prayag the pilgrim spot.
Ahmedabad and Karnavati are really 'imaginary' history, while
Sambhaji and Aurangabad have no connection. Similarly, the UP
government tried to rename Mughalsarai as Deendayalnagar (the
Centre refused this request) but Deendayal Upadhaya only died
there. Luckily, the opposition to renaming Lucknow as Lakshmanpura
even came from A. B. Vajpayee.
Even if historians can't shape public opinions, they should speak
up and at least oppose false history and false principles.
Back
Top
|
