Author: N S Rajaram
Publication: Organiser
Date: October 13, 2002
Introduction: The history and historiography
of India still carry the colonial imprint. This has allowed unqualified
individuals to comment an India simply because they are Westerners.
In an article "Cosmology in the
Rigveda- The Third Premise" (The Hindu, 9-7-2002) Patriazia Norelli-Bachelet
made sweeping statements regarding the Rigveda and its cosmic meaning-through
her 'cosmic' interpretation boiled down to imposing astrological readings
on the hymns with ideas that came much later. She also made the preposterous
claim: "The ancients were not at all concerned with keeping records for
posterity as we do today." The very fact that generations of Vedic priests
took extraordinary pains to preserve the Vedas is proof enough that they
did want to preserve them for posterity. How else did they survive?
The idea that Indians have no sense
of history is a European conceit-not any Indian view'. It was Karl Marx,
not any ancient Indian sage who insisted that India had no history, and
what is called history is simply a record of successive intruders. This
has now become the central dogma of the Marxist school as indeed it has
for the inheritors of the Eurocentric colonial thinking like Michael Witzel.
This is what brings together the Indian Marxists and some Western Indologists
on the issue of the Aryan invasion (or migration). And despite her claims
to being a cosmic thinker, Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet's constructions place
her squarely in the same camp. (And yet the same people criticize the Hindus.
for raising the history of Ayodhya, Somnath and a thousand other temple
destructions!)
Factual blunders
Even more absurdly, Norelli-Bachelet
invoked Sri Aurobindo's Secret of the Veda as authority for her 'cosmic'
in reality astrological interpretations, for there is no suggestion of
astrology in that work. Her exercise gives rise to anachronisms like imposing
the much later zodiac (rashi) on Vedic readings, of which there is no hint
in the Vedas of Sri Aurobindo. Even the later Vedanga Jyotisha uses the
ancient nakshatra system and not the rashis, which came more than a thousand
years later. All this suggests that Norelli-Bachelet is not at all familiar
with the original sources or Sri Aurobindo but has simply used them to
give authority and an appearance of authenticity to her own views. This
smacks of a charlatan-not a scholar.
But Norelli-Bachelet doesn't stop
here: her anachronistic exercise of imposing medieval astrology on ancient
texts, with which she is entirely unfamiliar, has led her to insist on
reading Vedic oceanic references as strictly celestial myths. While such
symbolism does exist in the Rigveda, the very fact that the Vedic poets
mythologized in terms of the sea and ships shows they were intimately familiar
with them. Myths and legends associated with the elephant headed God Ganesha
were not created by people who had never seen the elephant; nor was the
Sphinx created by Egyptians who had never seen the lion.
The fact is that oceanic references
in the Rigveda cannot so easily be brushed aside just because they are
inconvenient to the upholders of a -particular theory-a theory that holds
that the Vedas originated outside India. The motive behind such negationist
arguments is clear: following the collapse of the "No horse at Harappa"
argument, denying the ocean in the Rigveda has become the last resort for
placing the Vedic origins outside India. So "No Harappan horse" has given
way to "No Vedic ocean", not to mention the denial of the Sarasvati River
in the Rigveda. This, the essence of Witzel's 'philology', is nothing but
negationism.
The real issue here is not that
such absurd theories continue to be projected, but that a person of Norelli-Bachelet's
credentials or lack of both credentials and credibility-is able to get
prominent space in a major English language publication in India for the
sole reason that she is a Westerner. Nor is she is the only one. Steve
Farmer, a California computer programmer, became a hero overnight to a
segment of the Indian media simply by virtue of his being a Westerner and
anti-Hindu to boot. (Farmer may not like being called a computer programmer,
but that is the only thing about him we are certain about. At various times
he has claimed to be a comparative historian, Sinologist, historian of
science, a graphics expert and as the occasion suited him, an Indologists.)
It seems that to write about India-and taken seriously-all one needs are
presumption and the right skin color.
History or colonial theology?
Setting aside such absurdities,
what is really at issue is the teaching of history and creating suitable
methodology for the study of ancient India. The Vedas are part of Indian
history and this history cannot be based on wild speculation in the name
of cosmology or twisted in response to cries of 'saffronization'. In order
to place history and historiography on a firm footing, it is important
to focus on fundamentals-both facts and methodology. The last few decades
have thrown up new data from diverse sources that pose a major challenge
to historians and old theories. In order to preserve historical methods
that some scholars are comfortable with, there are continuing attempts
to negate data that contradict existing theories; Michael Witzel, Romila
Thapar and Irfan Habib are among prime exponents of such negationism. This
has led to scientifically unsupportable claims like Eurasian horses undergoing
drastic anatomical change by shedding ribs upon entering India, and the
attribution of genetic causes to man-made social classifications like caste.
Speculation in the name of cosmology is the worst of these. It has no place
in history, especially in teaching children,
The current debate, ranging from
Vedic interpretations to scientific contradictions, brings an important
point to light: it is not enough to correct or remove distortions like
the Aryan invasion; nothing less than a fundamental re-examination of the
underlying historiography is called for. Otherwise, more speculations and
conjectures that contradict empirical data are inevitable. When we do take
a close look at colonial historiography, two facts stand out. First, the
use of education as a political tool to sustain European rule. Secondly,
the application of a theological approach to history by scholars more familiar
with Christian beliefs than science. This included such luminaries as F.
Max Muller who rejected Darwin's Theory of Evolution in favour of the Biblical
Creation Theory, which holds that the world was created with all its life
forms at 9.00 AM, October 23, 4004 BC. Lord Macaulay, who sponsored Max
Muller, made no secret of his plan to use education as a tool in colonial
administration. In his own words: "We must at present do our best to form
a class who may be interpreters between us and the millions whom we govern;
a class of persons, Indian in blood and colour, but English in taste, in
opinions, in morals and in intellect." This was an integral part of the
British divide and rule strategy, for it created a privileged elite that
had a stake in colonial rule. As Lord Elphinstone, Governor of Bombay,
observed, "Divide and rule was Roman policy, and it should be ours."
But Macaulay and other educators
went further. They wanted Christianity to replace Hinduism, which they
felt would cement the rulers and the Indian elite further. In a letter
to his father, a Protestant minister, Macaulay wrote: "Our English schools
are flourishing wonderfully. The effect of this education on the Hindus
is prodigious. ...It is my belief that if our plans of education are followed
up, there will not be a single idolator among the respectable classes in
Bengal thirty years hence." And his protege Max Muller happily concurred
in a letter to his wife: "It (The Rigveda) is the root of their religion
and to show them what the root is, I feel sure, is the only way of uprooting
all that has sprung from it during the last three thousand years." Two
years later he also wrote the Duke of Argyle, the then acting Secretary
of State for India: "The ancient religion of India is doomed. And if Christianity
does not take its place, whose fault will it be?" Reverend W.W. Hunter
was still more blunt when he said: "Scholarship is warmed by the holy flame
of Christian zeal."
It was this zeal for making Indian
sources conform to a Eurocentric belief system that is responsible for
the present unhappy state of Indian historiography. There were supplementary
causes like German nationalism and crackpot race theories that played a
role but have moved to the fringes though race occasionally raises its
head in Indo-European studies. (And now in the guise of genetics tries
to revive invasion theories.) After independence, Marxism, another Eurocentric
doctrine, moved to fill the vacuum left by the retreat of Euro-colonialism.
Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet's singular cosmology is simply the latest belief
system to try to encroach on the field of Vedic history.
Residue of Euro-colonialism While
Macaulay is dead and European colonialism is a thing of the past, the education
and values that they fostered on the Indian elite continue to dominate
the establishment. It is hardly surprising that its representatives in
academia and the media should be excessively deferential towards Westerners
and easily intimidated by presumption of racial superiority. This has allowed
not only discredited scholars like Witzel but even outright charlatans
like Steve Fanner and Norelli-Bachelet to get respectful hearing in Indian
intellectual circles and the media. This is a damning indictment of the
secular' intellectual establishment in India: it has become refuge of Euro-colonial
values and covert race supremacist advocates.
This has allowed some Western scholars
and their Indian followers to negate new evidence and block progress. Scholars
continue to use linguistic arguments in support of their claims, but we
now have a new twist-with some New Age protagonists insisting that everything
should be read in cosmological terms though what is correct cosmology lies
in the eye of the beholder. Linguistics has shown itself to be of limited
value while cosmology gives rise to fiction and fantasy. One of the main
goals of educational reform should be to get rid of this colonial residue.
Swami Vivekananda, who possessed
both deep scholarship and true spirituality, said more than a century ago:
"Study Sanskrit, but along with it study Western sciences as well. Learn
accuracy, ...study and labor so that the time will come when you can put
our history on a scientific basis. ...Now it is for us to strike out an
independent path of historical research for ourselves, to study the Vedas
and Puranas and the ancient annals (Itihasas) of India, and from them make
it your sadhana (disciplined endeavor) to write accurate, sympathetic and
soul-inspiring history of India. It is for Indians to write Indian history
... you never cease to labour until you have revived the glorious past
of India in the consciousness of the people. That will be the true national
education, and with its advancement, a true national spirit will be awakened".
More than a century later, this
is yet to happen though a few tentative steps are being taken. It will
happen only when Indian scholars shake off their inferiority complex and
the last vestige of colonial 'scholarship' is rooted out.
