FACTS againest MYTHS V0L-IV-2-1997
Item
- Title
- FACTS againest MYTHS V0L-IV-2-1997
- extracted text
-
VIKAS ADHYAYAN KENDRA
VOLUME IV, #2, 1997
INFORMATION BULLETIN
Appropriating The Past:
Myths of Ancient History — Part 1
by P.R. Ram
^ftpmmcnt
The events of last two decades have brought to the
forefront the painful reality that communal forces can
misuse history to unimaginable limits; as a tool to
manipulate mass consciousness. This in turn serves as
the. basis on which ‘consent’ is manufactured to
‘engineer communal violence’. Consequently, this
leads to the increasing
communalisation of
society, for
which
again a distorted,
mythified version of
history is the major
‘handle’ for instance to
beat minorities with. At
one level it is ancient
history
which
is
‘constructed’ — to
Avolve a communal
^raentity at the deepest
level.
politics is projected as the interaction of religious
communities. Political allegiances are also related to
this identity alone. And as “the notion of religious
community claims a historical basis and takes the
identity of community as far back as possible, so as to
add to the legitimacy of the present identity, such
identities are aimed at drawing in numbers of people”
(Thapar, 1990).
On examining
the
methods followed by
communalists,
it
becomes evident that
they use history as the
justification
for
communal ideology. In
early 1920s and 30s it
was argued that Hindus
and Muslims constitute
two separate nations and
its justification was
derived from historical
misrepresentations.
In the these times when
Later, Hindu communal
the communalisation
ideologues like Savarkar
project of Hindu Right
Manufacturing “History”
and Golwalkar went on
is on the ascendant,
to manufacture the
“...our past is projected
partisan answers to the
to be crucial for our present and our future. History, the questions like : What is the Origin of our Nation? How
image of the past, is being conveniently and did Hindu nation come into existence? In this way,
indiscriminately used for political myth-making. There histbry was distorted to suit their political projects. As
have been comparisons between the ‘good’ British rule a logical trajectory of this method Hindu communalists
and the ‘bad’ Muslim rule”. (Habib, 1994).
project and situate the ideal Hindu society in the ancient
period, and then attribute the ills of society to Muslim
Communal ideology holds that Indian society is invasions. This argument is invoked to also justify
constituted by a number of religious communities, almost any and every restriction imposed on women and
which is not only their major identity but also the main to account for what is perceived as a steady decline to
determinant of their politics, and accordingly the the status of women from a condition of near-idyllic
FACTS against MYTHS
Na. 2, 1997
FOR PRIVATE CIRCULATION ONLY
Page I
bliss that prevailed during the Vedic era.
Further, there is the effort to derive ‘identity’ of the
nation from its ancient past. This is one situation how
history is mythified. But this justification of history can
occur in also a number of other ways. Many a times
outdated theories continue to be resurrected and
reiterated, despite the emergence and availability of
newer evidence, proving the contrary.
Historical analysis is an ongoing process. At times pre
conceived conclusions, necessary to fulfill political
contingency, are used to determine the selection of
evidence, and in this exercise, the evidence which is
not in conformity with the ‘necessary’ conclusions is
willfully ignored. Moreover, ‘mythification of history is
at one level a constant parallel to serious historical
research, for it provides expression to romanticism and
fantasy about the past. It increases in intensity during
periods of social transition and insecurity when old
orders are in abeyance and new ones are yet to come.
But when mythification ceases to be fantasy and
becomes the basis of the mobilisation of power and
where there is political manipulation of history by
substituting it with explanations created out of seeming
historical evidence, then it needs to be exposed”.
(Seminar, 1989). Simultaneously, it is imperative to also
debunk the colonial interpretation of Indian
philosophical traditions that have so greatly influenced
Indian historiography.
MYTH : Aryans were the original inhabitants of this
land in that the Harappan culture was an Aryan culture.
reformer had maintained that the British being the
descendants of the Aryans, as were the upper caste
Indians, the advent of the British to India was like
meeting of parted cousins. Later M.S. Golwalkar (Shri
Guruji), the Sarasangh Chalak (2nd Supreme Dictator)
of the RSS, in his, ‘We are Our Nationhood Defined’
presented a different interpretation of the Theory of the
Aryan Race, to state that Hindus and Hindus alone were
the original inhabitants of India. As per Guruji, ‘We,
Hindus, have been in undisputed and undisturbed
possession of this land for over eight .or even ten
thousand years, before this land was invaded by any
foreign race and therefore this land came to be known
as Hindustan, the land of Hindus”. (Golwalkar, 1939).
Golwalkar considered Aryans and Hindus as
•synonymous, and even asserted that the Aryans did not
migrate to India but were indigenous to this land.
On Tilak’s theory of ‘Arctic Home of the Vedas’.
Golwalkar had maintained that the “Arctic zone was
originally that part of the world which is today call;^
Bihar and Orissa, that later moved north east and, then,
in a sometimes northward movement, it came to its
present position .... We do not hesitate in affirming that
had this fact been discovered during the life time of
Lokmanya Tilak, he would unhesitatingly have
propounded the proposition that ‘the Arctic Home of the
Vedas’ was verily in Hindustan itself and that it was not
the Hindus who migrated to that land but the Arctic
zone which emigrated and left the Hindus in Hindustan
“(Golwalkar 1939, Page 8). However as Yechuri
states,” Even by the logic of his own argument, if the
Arctic zone moved away from Bihar - Orissa, how
could it leave the people behind who were inhabiting
the land mass ? When a land mass moves it moves
along with everything on it. People cannot be left
hanging in a vacuum only to drop down when and
where Golwalkar wishes !”
FACT : The ‘Theory of the Aryan’ race arose 150 years
ago. It is not referred to in any of the earlier Indian
texts, whether the texts are in Sanskrit or Persian.
Neither the Puranas nor the Vedas nor any of the
Believing in the centrality of Aryans origin in thjf
Persian historians referred to the Aryans as a racial
region, Hindutva ideologues are unrelenting, trying to
group. It is an invention of European thinkers,
pick the thread from one to other, distorting newer
particularly the French racist, Count Joseph Arthur de
findings to. fit into their construct. For instance,they
Gobineau who preached the “natural” inequality of the
have tried to link the Harappa and Mohen-jo-daro
races in the mid-19th century. He divided European
cultures also to the Aryans thereby reversing the
society into aristocracy, which is Aryan; the peasantry,
historically accepted sequence of events to state that the
which is non - Aryan. The ‘add on’ to this category is period of Rg Vedas ends by 3700 BC and is prior to
‘Semites’, the Jews, the traders. His thinking later Indus civilisation. Their ideologue Rajaram dates the
formed the basis of future fascist onslaughts in Europe.
beginning of Harappan civilisation to 3000 B.C. earlier
than usual, but accepts the agreed terminal date as 1900
This myth was later accepted wholesale by a nationalist B.C. “(Ratnagar, 1996). As per Ratnagar “there are too
like Lokmanya Bal Gangadhar Tilak who further many radio carbon dates now available for the
propounded the Theory of the Arctic Home of Vedas — Harappan sites to make possible any radical revision of
that the Aryans came from Arctic region, and later, on Harappan chronology. Unlike geo-morphologists and
way divided into two branches. One branch went to archeologists who have worked in the field on the
Europe and reverted back to barbarism, the other branch ancient process of desiccation of that river systems, this
came to India and retained Aryan civilisation and computer scientist, N.Rajaram, is certain ‘that Saraswati
revived Aryan culture all over the world. Similarly, but * ran dry precisely in 1900 B.C. So, the Rg Veda has to
in a distinct vein. Keshub Chandra Sen a religious
FACTS against MYTHS
/ •
' ,
' ' ' ;
No. 2, 1997
Page 2
be earlier than 1900 B.C. Moreover the Harappan
civilisation ended because Saras wati ceased to flow, that
in turn having resulted from a ‘calamitous drought’ and
- yes ! - the melting of ice caps following the ending of
last Ice Age’ (Rajaram 1995). Rajaram further states
that when that happened (he elite amongst the Aryans in
a ‘massive out flow’ migrated west via Iran. Among the
significant outcomes of that movement is the origin of
Egyptian pyramid in Vedic smasana-cit (Aryan Invasion
of India. Pg.50 (Rajaram, 1993).
The other “school” on the origin of Aryans posited the
view that they came from Asia, but this immediately
raised the question as to how can our ancestors have
come from Asia, as this was the high point of
imperialism and Asian countries were subject colonies.
To get around this problem,they substituted it with the
argument (hat Aryans were indigenous to India. This
view is in line with the communal thinking which
ppropriates the indigenous status to itself and thereby
ie rightful status as theirs of the land.
i
Max Mueller, an Orientalist applied this theory to India.
Orientalists were a.school of thought who were fighting
a losing battle with the Utilitarians an ethical theory
founded by an English moralist and writer on law, J.
Bentham (1748-1832). He held that the coming of
British to India was a ‘God sent’ event, meant to
‘civilise’ India. Orientalists intrusion in the Indian past
was an effort to bring back the ‘declining’ social norms
in their own fast changing society. They uncritically
held the Ancient Indian society as the ideal one,
overlooking its inner contradictions and tensions. “They
evolved a theory of the Indo-European homeland and
of the common ancestry of the Sanskritic and Greek
cultures. The Aryans were seen as a racial entity rather
than a group of people who spoke related languages,
and the dynamics of Aryan culture in India and Greek
were sought to be related (Thapar, 1994). This
viewpoint of idyllic ancient Indian society fitted well
into the wishes of the orthodox Hindus, who wholeheatedly adopted this view.
Mueller also evolved the theory that there was an
invasion of Aryans into north-western India and after
subjugating the local Dasas they settled down in India,
bringing with them their culture and civilisation — the
Sanskrit language, Vedic religion,etc. Mueller saw this
event as a kind of a civilising mission : that the Dasas
were very primitive, not developed or advanced and
the Aryans came to civilise them; that the upper castes
in India, sometimes referred to as ‘dvija’ (twice born
castes. Brahmin, Kshatrya and Vaishya in the Varma
system), are all descendants of Aryans, and so they are
demarcated from lower caste” (Thapar).
In reaction, Christian missionaries wrote that the
Aryans, the upper castes, oppressed the lower castes.
FACTS against MYTHS
Another reaction was the from Hindutva ideologues
who insisted that all castes Hindus are Aryas, and so
coined the term Hindu Aryas. They further said that
there was no invasion as they were indigenous people —
India being their Pitrabhumi (fatherland) and
Punyabhumi (Holyland), and that they spread from
India to all over Asia and Europe.
In line with the latest archeological findings, and
linguistic interpretations. Indian culture dates back to
6000 B.C. Its most discernible manifestation is the
Harappan Civilisation and also the most distinct and
decipherable civilisation of this region. It declined in
the second millennium BC and completely disintegrated
by 1500 B.C. when Aryans entered northwest of India.
‘The? Aryans or Indo-Aryan.s descendants of the IndoEuropeans had remained for some time in Bacteria
(Northern Afghanistan). By about 1500 B.C., however,
they had migrated into northern India through the passes
of the Hindu Kush mountains. At first they wandered
across the plains of Punjab, searching for pasture- land
being, predominantly a cattle breeding people. Finally
they settled in small village communities in forests and
gradually took to agriculture”, (Rom i la Thapar, 1966),
and went on to produce Rg Veda and other Vedic texts.
Contrary to the claims of Hindu communalists Vedic
society is no longer regarded the foundation of Indian
civilisation because a very different civilisation, the
Harappan Civilisation, had already preceded it and
which was comparati vely more advanced.
Hindutva historians argue that the Harrapan
Civilisation and Vedic Aryans are identical and now
date the Vedas back to the period of Harappan
Civilisation which they' maintain is the archeological
counterpart of the Vedic civilisation. However, as home
out also by linguistic analysis the Harappan Civilisation
was essentially an urban one, based on an urban culture,
while the Vedic civilisation according to Vedic texts
itself, was predominantly a pastoral, rural society with
no mention of an urban culture.
When he wrote over a hundred years ago, Mueller had
assumed that Vedic Sanskrit is the earliest and purest
form of Sanskrit, and was a pure Aryan language.
Today, however, the examination of its grammer
proves that it is not “pure”. Some elements of proto
Dravidian grammer are apparent in Vedic Sanskrit (See
below for further details) There occurs a mixture tin
language with the arrival of Aryans and there are many
words which are Indo - Aryan in origin (e.g. Pangala
word from a piioto-Dravidian or Mundari language
spoken by central Indian Adivasi area finds its place hi
Sanskrit). Thus there was a symbiosis of different
people living side-by-side, and with Sanskrit this
intermingling goes on increasing with time.
Roinila Thapar (VAK 1996) shows that '’the language
No. 2, 1997
Paee 3
has come from outside, from Iran, probably brought by
small groups of people for.which we have archeological
evidence. These migrants were usually pastoralists or
small-scale farmers, who over many hundred of years
were bringing in new language, which was also
changing in the process. Then when they settled in
India, the language in India also undergoes change
because of Indian connections. Therefore we argue that
there may not have been an invasion, we don't have the
archeological evidence for a huge, large - scale invasion
as Max Mueller insists, but there were multiple
migrations and there is evidence, from archaeology for
the migration. So in a sense it is unimportant to go on
saying : We are indigenous, because we can never prove
it. We are. in fact very mixed up. Aryan is. not a race
because we all use this term very loosely and speak
about Aryan race and the Dravidian race : the terrqs do
not refer to race but to the language used.”
The myth of Aryan race identified language with race.
Max Mueller observed that all those who spoke Aryan
languages (Sanskrit in India, Iranian in Iran, Greek,
Latin, Gaellic etc.) belong to the same race. The
monogenesis thesis traced back all three languages to
Indo - European and peoples biological origin was
traced to a single race. The work on biological race
which has been done over years shows that in terms of
genetic make up, in terms of relationships of various
group, the area of northern India comprises of a huge,
multiple variety of people, variety of races and one
cannot talk of a single race. “Therefore the notion that
there was once a pure Aryan race and every body that
spoke a particular language belonged to that race is
complete nonsense. These (Aryan, Dravidian) are not
races, these are not biological races, these are language
terms ... “ ( Romila Thapar 1996).
short texts.Decipherment has been a slow process of
understanding the structure ot the language by
establishing the internal logic of the script, by
comparison with other scripts, and by comparative
linguistics.
Innumerable claims have been made in the attempt to
crack the decipherment of the Indus Script. None have
been validated including the myth in question that the
Vedic text, ‘Nighantu of Yaska’ has supposedly aided in
cracking the.‘Rosetta Stone’ (the Rosetta Stone,
discovered by Napolean's army in Egypt in 1799 was
the key to the later decipherment of Egyptian
hieroglyphs as it had the same text written in Greek
hieroglyphs) of Hindu historians fail to state what
exactly the ‘Nighantu’ contains (Is it a bilingual text, or
example?);
* Further, the ‘Nighantu’ (c.700 B.C.) is a
commentary that had been recorded to explain rituals^,
and the etymology of certain unclear words in the RaF?
Veda. It has also no reference to scripts of any type;
* The dating of the seals on which the script were
inscribed — between 3000-2000 B.C. — is incorrect
because the date of the early phase of the Harappan
Civilisation itself is 3600 to 2600 B.C., when no script
was in existence; and the mature phase to 2600-1800
B.C., when there was a script. The Rg Veda was written
between 1500 and 1000 B.C.
Contrary to the claim, the Harappan script is instead
considered by scholars like the Finnish scholar Asko
Parpola to be a non-Aryan particularly Dravidian one.
He maintains that the “...writing of the Harappan script
is from right to left (like Urdu or the old Kharoshthi Comet Project) but since they are on seals, which are
used for impressions, it appears that it is in the opposite
MYTH : The Indus Script is a Vedic script
direction... Secondly, if the Harappan civilisation wa.^
post-Vedic, why is there no evidence of the horse in th®/
remains of that civilisation? We know from the Vedas
FACT : First and foremost, although the excavation of
that the hor.se was very important to that society. A
ruins do indeed advance our understanding of
number of animals are depicted on Indus seals, and the
civilisations they do not by the same token serve as keys
skeletal remains of a number of animals have also been
to unraveling the secrets of ancient societies and
found. But there is no evidence of the horse. Why?’’
civilisations. The master key,instead, to its secrets are in
(Frontline, February 21,1997)
its scripts — inscribed primarily on seals including
amulets and other objects.
Coinmunalism and History
As far as the seals with inscriptions on them of the INTERVIEW
Harappan sites are concerned there are approximately
3,500 inscribed texts, although the average number of The following is an excerpt of a talk by Prof Romila
signs in a text is less than five. However, the most Thapar presented at a workshop on “ Communalisni and
authentic pronouncement of this Harappan script is that History'' held by our Organisation at Khandala.
it has not been fully deciphered. The script is an
unknown script; written in an unknown language. It Q. Why is it that historians in particular are so
does not appear in a bi-lingual context; does not survive ^concerned about communal ideology, the ideology of
on any monument, and which must be deciphered from the communalists? Why is it that economists.
FACTS against MYTHS
Page 4
sociologists and others who are in die social sciences
are less concerned while historians are constantly
debating the ideology that is put out by coniniunalisin?
A. The answer to that question is that Firstly communal
ideology always uses history for its justification. We
had this with Muslim communalism in the 1920’s &
the 30’s, when it was argued that Hindus and Muslims
constitute two separate nations, two separate
communities and very soon community becomes nation
and there is talk about two separate nations. So you have
to talk about the Hindu nation and the Muslim nation.
This idea is also picked up by Hindu communal writing,
in the concept of Hindutva in the 1920’s and 30’s.
But in addition to that, it is also a concern ... that when
the Hindutva movement starts, in the writings of people
like Savarkar and Golvalkar, their concern is with things
like: What is the origin of our nation? How did the
JJindu nation come into existence? And if you are
Concerned with the origins of a people or a community
or a nation, automatically you go to history.
argued that it is not enough just to write about the past.
When the past is being misrepresented, when the past is
being abused, when the past is being exploited for an
ideology like a communal ideology, then the historian
has to enter the political debate. One has to participate
in the debate and point out that this is not the way in
which history should be.
This then leads me to another point and that is. that very
often you get a complete fabrication, a made up story
which is passed on by communal ideology as history.
For example, the supposed history of Ayodhya, which
you get from the writings of the VHP and from the
videos that they produced, and the articles that they have
written, where they locate, an exact spot in Ayodhya as
the Birth place of Ram. and of there being a temple
located at that spot which was destroyed by Babar and a
mosque put up. and so on.
Q. Can Faith be the basis of History?
A. The argument runs not that this is what we believe
happened.As long its a matter of belief, the historians
Secondly, what is the identity of our nation, as origin really can’t intervene except to say this belief cannot be
and identity is closely tied in? What is the history by taken as history. But when they start claiming that this is
which a particular nation comes to be established? So history and it is historically proven that this was the
that again is a concern, a question which the historians birth place of Ram and there was a temple over there
have to answer, it is a question in which history is and so on. then the historian has to say. No, there is no
brought into discussion. And thirdly, as more recently historical evidence at all. This was the reason why some
we have witnessed in the movement around the of us produced that little pamphlet which you might
Ramjanmabhoomi, there is also the argument that we have seen, the political abuse of history. The argument
can undo the wrongs of the past and re-do, as it were, was that this is not historically proven. Today we have a
re-create the balance by certain actions. So, if there was much sharper and clearer notion of what is historical
a temple at Ayodhya and it was destroyed by Babar to . evidence and how one proves historical evidence. And if
build a mosque, then if we destroy the mosque, we are the evidence is not there, then in today’s history one
intact making the score equal. One kind of vandalism is cannot say that this is historically correct and it is
received by another kind of vandalism, one kind of historically proven.
vandalism deserves another kind of vandalism.
So there is a difference between the historian's
|ut what is the purpose of all this mosque destruction interpretation of the past and the interpretation which
today? Is that a reply to the Muslims destroying temples communal ideology tries to introduce into the history of
in the past? So there is that element that we are settling India. Now, this is an important difference, it is
this score of the past. This is again something which one something we must be clear about because very often
has to be ver)' careful about, because the basic question the argument is made that: '■‘But this is history. History
still remains: can you today settle the spores of the past? tells us that this is rhe birth place of Ram, history tells us
that there was a temple over here”.
You may use some of the problems that the past has
created, some of the issues, the situations that the past The question is: Do historians accept it? How do
history of society has created for the present, and try and historians argue? There are some historians who accept
make, that situation better, try and take away the the birth place and the temple. But. then, you have to
nastiness of the problems. Bui can you really infim.t ask: Those that support its being the birth place of
settle scores like this? Can you pretend that you are Rain, how do they argue and those historians that are
opposing this idea, how do they argue? So in a sense it
putting right what went wrong in the past?
is not enough to say, is it correct or not that this was the
So, this really means that the interpretation of history birth place ? You have to understand what the arguments
becomes very important as does the role of the are. And this is where the role of historian again
historians in the building up or the opposing of a* becoipes extremely important because the historian is
communal ideology. Consequently, many of us have hot accepting a popular view, whatever that popular
FACTS against MYTHS
Na. 2, 1997
Page 5
view may be. The historian’s view is different and you
must acquaint yourself with what is the historian’s view.
Q. What is the difference between language and race?
A. 1 have to go back a little into history at this point.
You all know the difference between language and race.
Language is what we speak, what we think in, what we
write in; race is what we believe biologically to be the
category to which we belong. There is something
biological about race, its our ancestry, it is the people
we are related to, the group we belong to. It is now said
that there is no such thing as Aryan race. Max Mueller
argued that the people who spoke Aryan languages, and
the Aryan languages are Sanskrit in India, Iranian in
Iran, Greek, Latin, the Celtic languages. German, Some
of the Baltic languages and so on, that the people who
spoke the same language belong to the same race.' This
was what is called mono-genesis or a single origin. All
these languages were traced back to a single language,
which was then called Indo-European, and the origin
physical, biological of the people was traced back to a
single race and it was called the Aryan race. This was
the mistake which Max Mueller and others made.
Language can never be equated with race.
Let me illustrate this with an example which I
frequently quote. If, for example, in the year 4000 A.D.,
two thousand years from now, if the civilisation of the
United States becomes a ruin archaeologists
excavating in North America, the United States,
discover the language that had been in use in the U.S.
What would they discover? They will discover English,
they will discover American English to be more correct.
All over, north, south, east, west from the lowest level
to the highest level in society, with everybody using
that one language. Now if on the basis of that one
language you say that everybody who lived in the U.S.
in the 19th and 20th century belonged to a single race,
you can realise how completely erroneous the idea is.
biological races, these are language terms, they are
simply people speaking a particular language, speaking
a Aryan-related language in one case or they are
speaking a Dravidian-related language in the other.
Q. Is this way — the deeds of kings, emperors etc. —
the right way to look at history?
A. The point that I want to make is that when we
consider any period of history, we must always ask
ourselves a question: Who’s history are we talking
about? Are we talking about the history only of elite
groups, are we only going to base our information on
court chronicles and religious texts because we are
concerned only with upper caste history or are we not
also concerned with the history of the whole of society
which takes us to the lowest social strata. If we are
concerned with that, then we have to look at the texts
and the archaeological datad linked to people lower
down the social scale. Most of these texts of people th^.
belonged to either the lower levels of society or who a^P
outside the mainstream of Sanskritic culture or Persian
culture are in what we today call regional languages.
They are in Marathi, they are in Bengali, they are in old
Hindi, in Tamil, Telugu, and so on. And the historians
who have been writing .on this subject until very
recently have been using only Persian. Turkish and
Sanskrit texts. Therefore, the expression, the
articulation, the feelings, the beliefs, the ideas of people
lower down the social scale have not entered into
history books. Our history text books are still
concerned only with the elite sections of society.
When one starts looking at this kind of data one finds a
very interesting mixing between Hindu belief and
thought and Islamic belief arid thought. I mentioned the
name of Ekanatha who wrote a text called the “Hindu
Turk Samvada” where he discusses the differences in
religious beliefs between his own sect and Islamic^
belief. Its a very rich and vigorous discussion in whic^J
unpleasant things are said on both sides. But eventually
Now. Max Mueller and others were doing exactly the he says; that we have to live together and therefore we
same thing. They were saying that all these people from have to learn to understand each other. In Marathi, for
India, Iran, West Asia, Europe, right upto Ireland, they example, by the end of the eighteen century there is a
were ail using languages from the same source, related strong tradition of texts where very deliberate attempts
languages, therefore, they were all related people. Now are made to try and weave together the mythology of
the work that had been done on biological race over the Vaishnavism and Shaivism and stories connected with
years since Max Mueller wrote shows that in terms of Islamic origins, the Quran and so on. And then there is
biological race, that is, in terms of our genetic make up, also one of my favourite quotations from a famous text
in terms of our relationships to various group, the area called the “Brihat Shavara Tantra” which was written in
of northern India comprises a huge, multiple variety of a mixture of Sanskrit and Hindi. It dates to about the
people, variety of races; one cannot talk about a single 15th century. It is very interesting because it is full of
race. Therefore, the notion that there was once a pure inantras for various situations: if you want to bear a
Aryan race and everybody that spoke a particular male child you must recite this mantra, if your child
language belonged to that race is complete nonsense, falls ill you must recite these other mantras, if you are
there is absolutely no validity to it. So do make the getting married and want a happy married life you must
correction if people talk to you about the Aryan race and recite yg| other mantras and so on. For all these
the Dravidian race. These are not races, these are not important points in one’s life time there are different
gJACTSagoinst MYTHS
Page 6
mantras. There is one which says that when a child is
sick or when you want to remove an obstacle, the
mantra is not to Shri Ganesha, the mantra is to
Mahmood of Ghazni. Now this is something so curious.
The removal of obstacles I can understand, but why
when your child is sick would you invoke Mahmood of
Ghazni?
the stale. We did a study of history textbooks for
students from eight to twelveth standard in Madras. We
found that a sentence or two apart here and there, there
was an attempt in these books to strike a balance. It
would seem then that in some areas or states there is a
larger interest in the whole subject of history. In the
Tamil Nadu case for example when you are looking at
Dravidian history, you will necessarily undermine a lol
of national prototypes. This is a major problem which I
think needs to be tackled.
Now, I’m just giving a little taste of the kind of issues
that come up if one begins to look for a different kind of
historical data. Once you move out of the elite circles
and you go into these popular traditions you meet with In Maharashtra, the text-books committee for history
a different culture altogether, a culture which does not had found that some of the textbooks biased. It
suggest a monolithic Hindu arid Muslim society. Let me undertook the task of removing these distortions but just
conclude, then, by saying that I’m not arguing that before the new texts could be finalised, somebody
because there were no two monolithic communities:* leaked the story to the press and the reaction of
Hindu and Muslim in permanent conflict, that there parochial politicians sabotaged the whole exercise.
n
were a number of communities that were constantly in*.
harmony. I’m not arguing that peaceful co-existence and But also, there is a group working in M.P. the Ekalavya
permanent harmony is not what the picture is. The Group. They produced history text books which are
^feture is that you have a number of small communities. superior to anything we have written. But they were'
that are negotiating with each other all the time that they having great difficulties with the BJP government. Il
are. in fact, talking to each other, having a dialogue. was a stroke of luck that the BJP was voted out in M.P.
seeing how they can adjust to each other. There is a so they could carry on.
certain amount of give and take, there is perhaps more
take and give in some cases, there is hostility in some I think that one has to concede that history is much
cases and there is an absence of hostility in other cases. more interpretive than the natural sciences. As you
But. then, until we start examining how these small know, even in the natural sciences today, the idea of an
communities lived and co-existed, we will not even absolute objectivity is being doubted. Nevertheless, the
begin to understand how Indian society essentially point is that objective history is not something which is
functioned. And, therefore, the plea that one makes is static, objective history also changes as one goes
that please let us shift our vision from the history of along. One may have a particular interpretation from an
rulers and court circles to looking at the reality of objective point of view of history and it may begin to
history which is much more the kind of text that we change in a later generation. New evidence and tresh
have from groups that are not connected with the ruling interpretations have to be incorporated.
class. There is an absolute range of such texts: we
haven’t even began to explore them as historians, but Secondly, precisely because we have a society in which
these kinds of alternative reading of history are there are multiple views of history and multiple claims
to “This is my history, therefore. I believe what I am
therefore extremely important.
saying is historically true”, it is very necessary that there
Why is all this not reflected in the history that is must be people who say. no, sorry, your view of history
is prejudiced because of such and such. Now this is an
taught in our schools?
ongoing debate in society, it’s not as if there is a finality
A. Our problem today is that every time we say that we to history. I’m not claiming that the kind of
would like to change the books and write in a new interpretation I’m making is absolutely final. I mean
fashion we are told that we have to conform to the tomorrow somebody may come along and say: that’s
syllabus. So one answer to the question is that the not true, I have got evidence of this kind. My
majority of historians who teach in most universities in interpretation then will have to face that evidence and
India are not really thinking along these lines. that argument. But it is very necessary in any society
Therefore, those historians who think conventionally are that there be historians who are relatively much more
very often the ones who are put on to text book objective than others, who are questioning these very
committees. So, the text book syllabus remains a particularistic versions of history which are claiming to
be objective. That debate must be constant.
conventional syllabus.
When it comes to the regional level, you find that in the
stales, due to some particular minister of education
taking a somewhat different attitude, saying, thjs and
this aspect should be included in teaching history in
FACTS against MYTHS
Q. How does one deal with local traditions & history?'
A. What we were talking about yesterday that many of
us who belong to the secular tradition don’t really have
Ho. 2, 1997
Page 7
and that's incorrect.. I think it is necessary to make the
unsavoury parts of our history public and to explain
why they happened, explain why this attitude was
rampant at that time and explain precisely that we have
moved on, we are not the uncivilised people that say the
Portuguese Jesuits were who demanded the destruction
of temples and mosques. We don’t do that any more. I
mean one uses that as an example to explain how our
understanding of ourselves and the world around us has
changed. But I don’t think we should bypass it at all, its
very necessary to talk about this past. And the
argument should not be that because they endorsed the
Q. Can secular historians afford to bypass events and destruction of temples we today must endorse the
incidents of conflicts in history, say, destruction of destruction of mosques. No, we can’t totally understand,
temples or mosques or whatever. How does one face no we can’t recreate the past, but we can move towards
such historical reality?
the greater understanding of the past, that's really all
that one is trying to argue.
A. No. I don't think one should bypass it. I think
bypassing has been a fatal mistake. We have bypassed
a feel for local history. It is very important that one goes
into the question of local history and does it intelligently
and says that you know this, this and this is possible but
this is definitely not possible. So one has to force
oneself to take an interest in local culture and local
history. I believe the RSS is engaged in a massive
project of going into local history. I think in the next ten
years, they plan to go into each, district, each local area,
and produce their versions of local history. It is
therefore necessary that secular historians and groups
also take serious interest in understanding local history.
FACTS Agonist MYTHS is a monthly
bulletin of factual information on a number
of development myths and fallacies, etc.
including information against alien
development models, paradigms and false
concepts on caste, creed and gender.
Produced and Published by:
Wr
VIKAS ADHYAYAN KENDRA (VAK)
D-l, Shivdham, 62, Link Road,
Malad (W). M umbai - 400 064.
Tel.: 882 2850 and 889 8662
Fax:91-22-889 8941
e-mail: admin@VAK.ilbom.ernet.in
Designed und Typesei by:
O A&M PVT. LTD.
Prubhadevi. Mumbui ■ 25. Tel.: 430 2X02.432 459X
Printed try:
OFFSET
2/3 Emerald Corner, Maralha Colony. Tikalwadi,
Belgaum 590 006. Tel.: 42 41 24.
Printed Matter
BOOK-POST
Position: 3646 (3 views)