HVK Archives: For ignoramus Satiricus ignorance of history is bliss
For ignoramus Satiricus ignorance of history is bliss - Organiser
Satiricus
()
July 12, 1998
Title: For ignoramus Satiricus ignorance of history is bliss
Author: Satiricus
Publication: Organiser
Date: July 12, 1998
The trouble with history is that it happened. If that is not
clear enough Satiricus will say the trouble with history is that
it happened the way it happened. If this is still not clear to
fellow-dunces Satiricus will say the trouble with history is that
it happened without caring how it happened. Now that at least,
should be as plain as the wart on Satiricus nose. Should not
history have taken care to see-that it happened on the scientific
and secular lines ordained by the powers that be? Alas!
Thoughtless history did not take any such care, and so the Indian
Council of Historical Research had to set about the historic task
of giving a rational interpretation of national history. At least
that is what Satiricus understands from the title "Rational
versus National" that a journal has given to its long story on
the recent changes in the ICHR. Now simpleton Satiricus, for whom
ignorance of history is bliss, was under the impression that
there need not be a contradiction between national and rational,
and in fact national history had a rationale in national ethos.
But of course such impressions are wrong. and righting wrong
impressions about history was the noble mission, in which the
ICHR was busy so long. Will the ignoble people who have now
entered it tarnish that noble mission? That is the fear For this
particular journal's subtitle says, "Right-wing historians usurp
the ICHR." That disturbs Satiricus, but it also puzzles him.
For, he never knew history had wings. And he also does not know
how there can be right-wing historians. And as for the right-wing
"usurping" the ICHR throne it would automatically mean that the
left-wing has the divine right of kings to that throne. In other
words the left wing is the right wing and the right wing is the
wrong wing. Is all this getting a little too much for Satiricus'
bird-brain? Frankly yes. Especially because the journal's second
subtitle says, "A Hindu national history is but the next step."
This is supposed to be a terrifying prospect, but will anybody
please explain to this dimwit why he should be terrified? A
communal ignoramus that he is, Satiricus thought the national
history of Hindusthan cannot be anything but Hindu. But then, we
no longer live in Hindusthan, we live in secular India that is
incidentally, Bharat, and so we have to see that national history
is made rational history and that Hindu history is suitably
sanitized into secular, scientific, progressive history. This was
the laudable purpose for which the late Smt Indira Gandhi set up
the ICHR. Its original aim was to give a "rational" direction to
historical research and foster "an objective and scientific
writing of history". This is what the pro-rational journal says,
but is that all? This pro-national (and hence irrational)
journal, for which Satiricus writes, says no, there is something
more - which is something more important. It says, "To foster
objective and scientific writing of history as will inculcate an.
informed appreciation of the country's national and cultural
heritage was the ideal with which the ICHR was set up. Good God!
Can it be true? Could scientific rationalism and national
heritage mix? That amounts to saying that what is national can
also be rational. Can Satiricus be anti-national enough to claim
that nationalism can include rationalism? And can Satiricus be
irrational enough to question the concept of rationalism? If
history is the chronicle of human activity, and if a human being
is defined as a bundle of contradictions how rational can human
history be? How rational and scientific was Mahmud Ghazni when he
sent the Somnath idols to Ghazni, Mecca and Madina for the
faithful to; trample upon them after refusing a lot of wealth
that was offered for sparing the idols? Satiricus does not know
but left-wing historians are expected to. As for scientific
writing of history Satiricus supposes that it pre-supposes
science, so the left-wing historians of ICHR are more or less
scientists of history. But do these scientists know what science
is all about? The other day Satiricus read an article strangely
titled "God through physics", which said ancient Hindu insight
and modern science were converging in their quest for the
ultimate reality. Had this piece not been based on a Westerner's
book Satiricus would have unhesitatingly dubbed it a horrid
attempt at Hinduising science. But the book actually says that
particle physics and quantum mechanics are coming to the same
conclusion's as ancient Hindu, sages about ultimate reality. This
is getting more and more impossible, because it virtually means
that ultimate left-wing reality is a figment of the left-wing
imagination, and also that what was then Hindu is now scientific.
In other words a Hindu national history does not have to be
written, it is already there, it is quite rational and it is even
scientific. That does it. This scientific perversion of
scientific history writing must be countered at all cost. It must
be firmly and learnedly pointed out that taking pride in national
history is unscientific and irrational and only that national
history is worth reading. which is written by those who have a
long history of betraying the nation.
Back
Top
|
