Spatio-Temporality in Hindu StudiesFebruary 26, 2009 by arvindsharma To say that Hindus did not or do not have a sense of history could mean that they substituted a sense of space for a sense of time, in the sense that they dwelt in a “single space,” probably a single mythical space. It also implies that they do not have a sense of change. They can sense a change within a space from one topos to another, but not a change from one moment to another. It is important to keep these unarticulated assumptions in mind in dealing with the Western reconstruction of India’s past. For the West, the sense of history, or change from one moment to another is important, for that is what history is. What is more, the succeeding moment is often seen as an improvement over the preceding moment in Western culture and this of course constitutes the core idea of progress. As its flip side, one could also posit a concept of regress in other cultures. The association of these somewhat dissociated meanings might make room for the suggestion that history involves periodization and the manner of periodization is bound to be affected by these loose, but not uninfluential, notions of time in the West. They have a double bearing on the process of historical periodization: (1) the tendency to assume that what is different must belong to a different period of time, for difference is seen to imply change and (2) that this difference either leads to a better or worse condition. How these assumptions about the relation of temporality to heterogeneity may have affected the Western reconstruction of India’s past therefore needs to be taken into account. How the assumption that differences involve differences in time rather than differences in space might affect historical assessments is best illustrated with examples drawn from the history of Indian philosophy. There is this constant debate in Western histories of Indian philosophy about which school came first and which after, or which system preceded or succeeded which, at the expense of the realization that they may have co-existed, as they did, we know, for thousands of years. This tendency towards longitudinality as an explanation of heterogeneity, is one consequence of working primarily with a model of temporality to explain heterogeneity. The discussion, in the case of the Mahābhārata, of how the Vedic, Kṣatriya and Brāhmaṇa elements must have played a successive rather than a simultaneous role in the composition of the Mahābhārata provides another illustration of this point. How the assumption of progress or regress affects historical assessments can also be similarly identified. Consider the following statement: As we contemplate the long procession of Indian history it may at first sight seem little more than an unending procession, with the elephants of states and umbrellas of authority appearing at intervals, interspersed with trains of attendants and disturbed by the brawls of contending factions. An Amurath to Amurath succeeded, it would seem, with intervals of anarchy while one dynasty replaced another. Or it can be seen as a series of invasions, each adding some new element to the population, whose rule is displaced in turn by the next arrivals. Professor A.L. Basham, in a recent inaugural lecture, could see no thread of meaning running through the four and one-half thousand years of which we have some knowledge.[1] Percival Spear goes on to say, however, The dynastic and racial view was given its classical form by Mountstuart Elphinstone in his History, which ran through nine editions from 1841 to 1909. The Indian historian is inclined to see Indian history as a splendid Hindu creative achievement leading to a golden age in the fourth and fifth centuries A.D., followed by the humiliation of Muslim conquest and domination, the British episode, and the glorious renaissance and revival of the past and present centuries. The Pakistani may see Indian history as a great Muslim creative achievement superimposed upon a corrupt pagan society and culminating in the Mughal period and the reign of Aurangzeb. The British were the darkeners of the light, the precursors of the modern Indian infidel state. British historians in the past have tended to see Muslim rule as a preface to their own, and their own as a restoration of ordered life in a decayed society and the introduction of fresh light from the West, and more particularly the Western isles.[2] This concept of progress seems to be at work behind the statement that “British historians in the past tended to see Muslim rule as a preface to their own, and their own as a restoration of ordered life in a delayed society”. Ironically, the author himself ends up by viewing British rule itself in relation to India through the same prism![3] The survey of the religious history of India points in the same direction. The point has not escaped attention, but it has not been accorded much importance. It lies sandwiched as a caveat between two slices of conventionally Western approaches in the following citation from Louis Renou. The Upaniṣads are a particularly delicate case; the problem, stated in simplified form, has been whether the Upaniṣads were pre- or post-Buddhist. Their subject-matter and method of presentation have much in common with Buddhistic writings; the Pāli style seems, indeed, to be a diluted imitation of the Upaniṣadic style. The secular approach of the Upaniṣads is characteristic also of Buddhism and Jainism, those religions of princes. If we work on the presupposition that in India progress is from the simple to the complex, from brevity to elaboration, the Upaniṣads must be regarded as earlier. This is my own view.[4] The point ends here and is followed by the remark: But we must not be surprised to see that in India parallel streams of thought may exist side by side without any contact other than an unemphatic rivalry.[5] But after momentary hesitation, the earlier flow of thought is soon resumed. If, on the other hand, we believe that the Upaniṣads were only made through Buddhist influence, or, in other words, that ‘it was Buddhism that taught the Indians to philosophize’, we are losing sight of the fact that Vedic speculation is firmly established from the Ṛgveda onwards, not only in the tenth book, but even in what is known as the older Ṛgveda, for example, in iii. 54, 9: ‘I recognize from afar the ancient and immemorial one. We are descended from him, the great Procreator, the Father. The gods who do him homage, in their own vast, separate domain, quickly took up their positions in the intervening space…’ Here we already have a full formulation: the single original principle, and the realm of the gods lying between Man and the Supreme being. Religion and speculation go hand in hand from the very outset.[6]
[1] Percival Spear, India: A Modern History (Ann Arbour: The University of Michigan Press, 1972) p. 465. [2] Ibid., p. 465. [3] Ibid. [4] Louis Renou, Religion of Ancient India (London: Athlone Press, 1953) p. 7. [5] Ibid. [6] Louis Renou, Religions of Ancient India (London: Athlone Press, 1953) p. 7-8, emphasis added. http://arvindsharma.wordpress.com/ Distortions in Indian history by BB Lal (January 2009)A search for India's true
history International conference on Indian history, civilisation and geopolitics. "Indians are being
cheated of their true history. The time has come to write an authentic and
unbiased history of India free from ideological or colonial biases,” said
former Union Minister Dr Subramanian Swamy while giving a call to reorient the
policy of the Indian state to purge from history books’ false chronology of
ancient India and myths such as Aryan invasion and racial divide of north and
south Indians. Dr Swamy was addressing the valedictory session of a three-day
international history conference in New
Delhi on January 11. The conference was organised on
Indian history, civilisation and geopolitics by the US-based Indic Studies
Foundation and the Akhil Bharatiya Itihas Sankalan Yojana (ABISY) at Indian
International Centre from January 9 to January 11. Apart from historical
themes, the conference also discussed India’s modern geo-political
landscape and strategic affairs. More than 100 distinguished scholars and
historians from India, Greece, Belarus,
US, UK, France, Sri Lanka,
Nepal,
etc. participated in the conference. The scholars challenged many aspects of
ancient Indian history as it is taught today and exposed various myths that
have been presented as facts by the Raj historians of the 19th century. http://www.organiser.org/dynamic/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=274&page=36
Defalsification of Indian history In
this falsified history, it is made out that Hindus capitulated to Islamic
invaders. But on the contrary,unlike Iran,
Iraq and Egypt where
within decades the country capitulated to become 100 per cent Muslims. India despite
800 years of brutal Islamic rule, remained 80 per cent Hindu. The
UPA has succeeded in persuading more state governments to accept the NCERT
texts. A report on Monday (January 5, 2009) said 12 more state governments have
accepted to teach NCERT texts in their schools. http://www.organiser.org/dynamic/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=274&page=6
See: http://www.hamsa.org/ 'Baptising' Thiruvalluvar to 'besiege' the Hindus!By: B R HARAN History
is always written by the victors and whoever controls the writing of history
books control the past. Without doubt, the most consistently powerful force in
the western world over the last two thousand years has been the Roman Catholic
Church and consequently history has often been what it wanted to be
http://pseudosecularism.blogspot.com/2008/10/baptising-thiruvalluvar-to-besiege.html Defalsify India’s history as a first step in national renaissance – Dr. Subramanian SwamyDr. Subramanian Swamy’s valdedictory speech on January 11 at the Internatonal Conference on Indian History, Civilisation and Geopolitics 2009 (ICIH-2009) at New Delhi’s India International Centre. Introduction The identity of India is Hindustan, i.e., a nation of Hindus and those others who acknowledge with pride that their ancestors were Hindus. Hindustan represents the continuing history of culture of Hindus. One’s religion may change, but culture does not. Thus, on the agenda for a national renaissance should be the dissemination of the correct perception of what we are. This perception has to be derived from a defalsified history. However, the present history taught in our schools and colleges is the British imperialist-sponsored one, with the intent to destroy our identity. India as a State is treated as a British-created entity and of only recent origin. The Indian people are portrayed as a heterogeneous lot who are hopelessly divided against themselves. Such a “history” has been deliberately created by the British as a policy. Sir George Hamilton, Secretary of State for India, wrote to the Home Office on March 26, 1888 that “I think the real danger to our rule is not now but say 50 years hence….. We shall (therefore) break Indians into two sections holding widely different views ….. We should so plan the educational text books that the differences between community and community are further strengthened”. After achieving independence, under the leadership of Jawaharlal Nehru and the implementing authority of the anglicized ICS, revision of our history was never done, in fact the very idea was condemned as “obscurantist” and Hindu chauvinist by Nehru and his ilk. The Imperialist History of India What is the gist of this British imperialist-tailored Indian history? In this history, India is portrayed as the land “conquered” first by the ‘Dravidians’, then by the ‘Aryans’, later by Muslims, and finally by the British. Otherwise, everything else is mythical. Our history books today exhibit this obsession with foreign rule. For example, even though the Mughal rule from Akbar to Aurangzeb is about 150 years, which is much shorter than the 350 year rule of the Vijayanagaram empire, the history books of today hardly take notice of the latter. In fact the territory under Krishna Devaraya’s rule was much larger than Akbar’s, and yet it is the latter who is called “the Great”. Such a version suited the British rules who had sought to create a legitimacy for their presence in India. Furthermore, we were also made to see advantages accruing from British rule, the primary one being that India was united by this colonialism, and that but for the British, India would never have been one country. Thus, the concept of India itself is owed to the plunder of colonialists. In this falsified history, it is made out that Hindus capitulated to Islamic invaders. But on the contrary,unlike Iran, Iraq and Egypt where within decades the country capitulated to become 100% Muslims. India despite 800 years of brutal Islamic rule, remained 80% Hindu. These totally false and pernicious ideas have however permeated deep into our educational system. They have poisoned the minds of our younger generations who have not had the benefit of the Freedom Struggle to awaken their pride and nationalism. It has thus to be an essential part of the renaissance agenda that these ideas of British-sponsored history of India, namely, (1) that India as a State was a gift of the British and (2) that there is no such thing as a native Indian, and what we are today is a by-product of the rape of the land by visiting conquerors and their hordes and (3) that India is a land that submitted meekly to invading hordes from Aryan to the English, are discarded. Just because India did not have a nation state of the present boundaries, exercising control through a unified modern administration, does not mean that there was no India. On the contrary, there was always as India which from north to south, thought of fundamentally as one country. Just as Hinduism exists from ancient days despite a lack of a Church, Book, or Pope, Hindustan too existed from time immemorial but without the parameters of a modern state. The invading Muslims and the British on the contrary tried to disrupt that unity by destroying the traditional communication channels and educational structures. Thus, on the agenda for National Renaissance has to be a new factual account of our history, focusing on the continuous and unbroken endeavours of a people united as a nation. This history of India must deal with the conscious effort of our people to achieve a civilization, to reach better standards of life, and live a happier and nobler life. Although the lamp of faith of the Indian people burnt brightly in long periods, this history must also record when that faith dimmed and brought shame to the people. Such a factual account of our past is essential to the agenda, because we have to objectively disgorge and discard the foreign versions of our history. It is this foreign version that makes us out to be foreigners in our own land. The Aryan-Dravidian divide in the history taught in schools and universities is purely a conception of foreign historians like Max Mueller and has no basis in Indian historical records. This fraudulent history had been lapped up by north Indians, and by south Indian Brahmins, as their racial passport to Europe. Such was the demoralization of the Hindu mind, which we have to shake off through a new factual account of our past. Falsification of Chronology in India’s History The fabrication of our History begins with the falsification of our chronology. The customary dates quoted for composition of the Rig Veda (circa 1300 B.C.), Mahabharat (600 B.C.), Buddha’s Nirvana (483 B.C.), Maurya Chandragupta’s coronation (324 B.C.), and Asoka (c.268 B.C.) are entirely wrong. Those dates are directly or indirectly based on a selected reading of Megasthenes’ account of India. In fact, so much so that eminent historians have called if the “sheet anchor of Indian chronology”. The account of Megasthenes and the derived chronology of Indian history have also an important bearing on related derivations such as the two-race (Aryan-Dravidian) theory, and on the pre-Vedic character of the so called Indus Valley Civilization. Megasthenes was the Greek ambassador sent by Seleucus Nicator in c. 302 B.C. to the court of the Indian king whom he and the Greek called “Sandrocottus”. He was stationed in “Palimbothra”, the capital city of the kingdom. It is not clear how many years Megasthenes stayed in India, but he did write an account of his stay, titled Indika. The manuscript Indika is lost, and there is no copy of it available. However, during the time it was available, many other Greek writers quoted passages from it in their own works. These quotations were meticulously collected by Dr. Schwanbeck in the nineteenth century, and this compilation is also available to us in English (J.M. McCrindle: Ancient India as Described by Megasthenes and Arrian). When European indologists were groping to date Indian history during the nineteenth century (after having arbitrarily rejected the various Puranas), the Megasthenes account came in very useful. These scholars simply identified “Sandrocottus” with Chandragupta, and “Palimbothra” with Pataliputra. Since Megasthenes talks of Sandrocottus as being a man not of “noble” birth who essentially usurped the throne from Xandrames and founded a new dynasty, the western writers took it as enough evidence to suggest that Sandrocottus was Maurya Chandragupta, who deposed the Nanda (=Xandrames) dynasty, and founded the Maurya dynasty. This identification, thus places Maurya Chandragupta circa 302 B.C. However, Megasthenes also notes that Sandrocottus was a contemporary of Alexander, and came to the throne soon after Alexander’s departure. With a little arithmetic on how many days it would have taken Alexander to cross the Indus, etc., the scholars arrive at c.324 B.C. as the date of Chandragupta Maurya’s coronation. It is on this date that every other date of Indian history has been constructed. The western writers constructed other dates of Indian history by using the data on the number of years between kings given in the Puranas, even though they have generally discredited this source. For instance, the Puranas give the number of years for the reign of Chandgragupta and Bindusara as 62 years. Using this period, Asoka’s coronation year is calculated by them as 324-62 =c 262 B.C. This estimated year is then cross-checked and adjusted with other indicators, such as from the Ceylonese Pali tradition. The point that is being made here is that some of the important dates of Indian history have been directly determined by the identification of Megasthenes’ Sandrocottus with Maurya Chandragupta, and Xandremes with Nanda. The founder of the Mauryas, however, is not the only Chandragupta in Indian history, who was a king of Magadh and founder of a dynasty. In particular, there is Gupta Chandragupta, a Magadh king and founder of the Gupta dynasty at Patliputra. Chandragupta Gupta was also not of “noble” birth and, in fact, came to power by deposing the Andhra king Chandrasri. That is, Megasthenes’ Sandrocottus may well be Gupta Chandragupta instead of Maurya Chandgragupta (and Xandremes the same as Chandrasri, and Sandrocryptus as Samudragupta). In order to determine which Chandragupta it is, we need to look further. It is, of course, a trifle silly to build one’s history on this kind of tongue-gymnastics, but I am afraid we have no choice but to pursue the Megasthenes evidence to its end, since the currently acceptable history is based on it. In order to determine at which Chandragupta’s court Megasthenes was ambassador, we have to look further into his account of India. We find he was at Pataliputra (i.e. Palimbothra in Megasthenes’ account). We know from the Puranas (which are unanimous on this point) that all the Chandravamsa king of Magadh (including the Mauryas) prior to the Guptas, had their capital at Girivraja (or equivalently Rajgrha) and not at Pataliputra. Gupta Chandragupta was the first king to have his capital in Patliputra. This alone should identify Sandrocottos with Gupta Chandragupta. However some 6-11th century A.D. sources call Pataliputra the Maurya capital, e.g., Vishakdatta in Mudrarakshasa, but these are based on secondary sources and not on the Puranas. Pursuing Megasthenes’ account further, we find most of it impossible to believe. He appears to be quite vague about details and is obviously given to the Greek writers’ weakness in letting his imagination get out of control. For example, “Near a mountain which is called Nulo there live men whose fee are turned back-wards and have eight toes on each foot.” (Solinus 52.36-30 XXX.B.) “Megasthenes says a race of men (exist in India) who neither eat or drink, and in fact have not even mouths, set on fire and burn like incense in order to sustain their existence with odorous fumes…..” (Plutarch, Frag. XXXI). However, Megasthenes appears to have made one precise statement of possible application which was picked up later by Pliny, Solinus, and Arrian. As summarized by Professor K.D. Sethna of Pondicherry, it reads: “Dionysus was the first who invaded India and was the first of all who triumphed over the vanished Indians. From the days of Dionysus to Alexander the Great, 6451 years reckoned with 3 months additional. From the time of Dionysus to Sandrocottus the Indians reckoned 6452 years, the calculation being made by counting the kings who reigned in the intermediate period to number 153 or 154 years. But among these a republic was thrice established, one extending…..years, another to 300 and another to 120. The Indians also tell us that Dionysus was earlier than Heracles by fifteen generations, and that except for him no one made a hostile invasion of India but that Alexander indeed came and overthrew in war all whom he attacked.” While there a number of issues raised by this statement including the concoction that Alexander was victorious in battle across the Indus, the exactness with which he states his numbers should lead us to believe that Megasthenes could have received his chronological matters from none else than the Puranic pundits of his time. To be conclusive, we need to determine who are the “Dionysus” and “Heracles” of Megasthenes’ account. Traditionally, Dionysus (or Father Bachhus) was a Greek God of wine who was created from Zeus’s thigh. Dionysus was also a great king, and was recognized as the first among all kings, a conqueror and constructive leader. Could there be an Indian equivalent of Dionysus whom Megasthenes quickly equated with his God of wine? Looking through the Puranas, one does indeed find such a person. His name is Prithu. Prithu was the son of King Vena. The latter was considered a wicked man whom the great sages could not tolerate, especially after he told them that the elixir soma should be offered to him in prayer and not to the gods (Bhagavata Purana IV.14.28). The great sages thereafter performed certain rites and killed Vena. But since this could lead immediately to lawlessness and chaos, the rshis decided to rectify it by coronating a strong and honest person. The rshis therefore churned the right arm (or thigh; descriptions vary) of the dead body (of Vena) to give birth to a fully grown Prithu. It was Prithu, under counsel from rshi Atri (father of Soma), who reconstructed society and brought about economic prosperity. Since he became such a great ruler, the Puranas have called him adi-raja (first king) of the world. So did the Satpatha Brahmana (v.3.5 4.). In the absence of a cult of soma in India, it is perhaps inevitable that Megasthenes and the other Greeks, in translating Indian experiences for Greek audiences, should pick on adi-raja Prithu who is “tinged with Soma” in a number of ways and bears such a close resemblance to Dionysus in the circumstances of his birth, and identify him as Dionysus. If we accept identifying Dionysus with Prithu, then indeed by a calculation based on the Puranas (done by D.R. Mankad, Koti Venkatachelam, K.D. Sethna, and others), it can be conclusively shown that indeed 6451 years had elapsed between Prithu and a famous Chandragupta. This calculation exactly identifies Sandrocottus with Gupta Chandragupta and not with Maurya Chandragupta. The calculation also identifies Heracles with Hari Krishna (Srikrishna) of Dwarka. This calculation must be necessarily long and tedious to counter the uninformed general feeling first sponsored by Western scholars, that the Puranas spin only fair tales and are therefore quite unreliable. However, most of these people do not realize that most Puranas have six parts, and the Vamsanucharita sections (especially of Vishnu, Matsya, and Vagu) are a systematic presentation of Indian history especially of the Chandravamsa kings of Magadha. In order to establish these dates, I would have to discuss in detail the cycle of lunar asterisms, the concept of time according to Aryabhatta, and various other systems, and also the reconciliation of various minor discrepancies that occur in the Puranas. Constraints of space and time however, prevent me from presenting these calculations here. However, on the basis of these calculations we can say that Gupta Chandragupta was “Sandrocottus” c.327 B.C. His son, Samudragupta, was the great king who established a unified kingdom all over India, and obtained from the Cholas, Pandyas, and Cheras their recognition of him. He also had defeated Seleucus Nicator, while his father Chandragupta was king. On this calculation we can also place Prithu at 6777 B.C. and Lord Rama before that. Derivation of other dates without discussion may also be briefly mentioned here: Buddha’s Nirvana 1807 B.C., Maurya Chandragupta c. 1534 B.C., Harsha Vikramaditya (Parmar) c. 82 B.C. The European scholars have thus constructed an enormous edifice of contemporary foreign dates to suit their dating. A number of them are based on misidentification. For instance, the Rock Edict XIII, the famous Kalinga edict, is identified as Asoka’s. It was, however, Samudragupta’s (Samudragupta was a great conqueror and a devout admirer of Asoka. He imitated Asoka in many ways and also took the name Asokaditya. In his later life, he became a sanyasi). Some other facts, which directly contradict their theories, they have rather flippantly cast aside. We state here only a few examples – such facts as (1) Fa-hsien was in India and at Patliputra c. 410 A.D. He mentions a number of kings, but makes not even a fleeting reference to the Gupta, even though according to European scholars he came during the height of their reign. He also dates Buddha at 1100 B.C.. (2) A number of Tibetan documents place Buddha at 2100 B.C. (3) The Ceylonese Pali traditions leave out the Cholas, Pandyas, and Cheras from the list of Asoka’s kingdoms, whereas Rock Edict XIII includes them. In fact, as many scholars have noted, the character of Asoka from Ceylonese and other traditions is precisely (as R.K. Mukherjee has said) what does not appear in the principal edicts. The accepted history of no country can however be structured on foreign accounts of it. But Nehru and his Leftist cronies did just that, and thus generations of Indians have been brainwashed by this falsified history of India. The time has come for us to take seriously our Puranic sources and to re-construct a realistic well-founded history of ancient India, a history written by Indians about Indians. Such a history should bring out the amazing continuity of a Hindu nation which asserts its identity again and again. It should focus on the fact that at the centre of our political thought is the concept of the Chakravartin ideal – to defend the nation from external aggression while giving maximum internal autonomy to the janapadas. A correct, defalsified history would record that Hindustan was one nation in the art of governance, in the style of royal courts, in the methods of warfare, in the maintenance of its agrarian base, and in the dissemination of information. Sanskrit was the language of national communication and discourse. An accurate history should not only record the periods of glory but the moments of degeneration, of the missed opportunities, and of the failure to forge national unity at crucial junctures in time. It should draw lessons for the future generations from costly errors in the past. In particular, it was not Hindu submission as alleged by JNU historians that was responsible for our subjugation but lack of unity and effective military strategy. Without an accurate history, Hindustan cannot develop on its correct identity. And without a clearly defined identity, Indians will continue to flounder. Defalsification of Indian history is the first step for our renaissance. ‘Purge history books of bias’ Staff Reporter NEW DELHI: The former Union Minister, Subramanian Swamy, has charged that wilful distortions in writing Indian history have been occurring solely due to state support since the British times. “The British rulers wrote our history to divide and rule us. But what is the excuse of Indian governments after Independence to continue with the same policy?” He was delivering the valedictory address at a three-day international conference on “Indian History, Civilisation and Geopolitics” here on Sunday. Dr. Swamy said myths spread by biased historians overtook Indian history, while actual events and places had been declared myths. He demanded a reorientation of the state policy to purge history books of a false chronology of ancient India and myths such as Aryan invasion and racial divide of north and south Indians. colonial biases.” Vicious myth Quoting dozens of slokas, scholar S. Ram Mohan said: “[That] women had no rights in ancient India is a vicious myth spread by colonial historians. “The reality is that all the three ancient code books of Hindus — Manu Smriti, Narad Smriti and Yajnavalkya Smriti — have a common theme of social welfare and an egalitarian society, with a very high status assigned to women and the deprived sections.” http://mail.google.com/mail/#inbox/11ece7b3ce49051b
Miscarriage of justice in Kluge Prize 2008. There is a blatant and serious mistake. Librarian of Congress, please withdraw award to Romila Thapar. Read a Professor's note. Possessing only hearsay knowledge of Sanskrit, she should have declined any invitation to speak in World Sanskrit Conference (WSC). News about her WSC appearance is here: www.indology.bun.kyoto-u.ac.jp/14thWSC/2nd_circular.pdf Kalyanaraman Romila Thapar’s Kluge
Prize Distorting Indian history to win foreign acclaim It is only in India that a
historian without adequate command of Sanskrit can claim expertise on its
ancient past right across its entire length and breadth. Social status is all
that counts in feudal India,
a feature on display in virtually every aspect of its social life and all that
is required to silence disbelief. In a pathetic attempt to apply deep thought
to Mahmud of Ghazni’s invasions of India, Romila Thapar piles one
speculation upon another, fabricating motives and thought processes with
abandon. She writes as if she had been a contemporary of the conqueror, priests
and participants in major historical events over several centuries. Romila Thapar has been
awarded the Kluge Prize for Lifetime Achievement in the Study of Humanity for
ostensibly creating “a new and more pluralistic view of Indian civilisation,
which had seemed more unitary and unchanging, by scrutinising its evolution
over two millennia and searching out its historical consciousness”. Thapar’s US Congressional acclamation seeks to validate a
blatantly provocative view of India’s
past, espoused mainly by its Stalinist fifth column, assorted Islamist jehadis
and militant Christian evangelists. The US
Congressional committee resoundingly reaffirms the bitter American animus
harboured against Hindu India that has been the ceaseless feature of US foreign policy towards it since Independence. It was this
vicious hatred and a half-baked strategic calculus that prompted US support for Pakistan’s
genocide in East Pakistan in 1971. And it is
the same perspective that has now been determinedly adopted by contemporary
American Christian evangelists.
http://www.organiser.org/dynamic/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=273&page=5 Read an open letter of protest by Vishal Agarwal, on an earlier context of appointment to Kluge Chair 2003. [Source: Appointment of Professor Romila Thapar to the Kluge Chair at the Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. An Open Letter of Protest Date: 29 April 2003 To: Prosser Gifford, Director of Academic Programs, LOC]. http://voiceofdharma.com/indology/klugethapar.html
An Open Letter of ProtestTo: Prosser Gifford, Director of Academic Programs, LOC. � First, my complaint should not be construed as an attack on academic freedom. On the contrary, as a member of an American minority community, my concern is about due process and that it give an equal voice to the minority community on par with other Americans. As you can judge from the tremendous response to an on-line petition, the community is voicing its distress and sadness at the appointment of Professor Thapar to the Kluge Chair. � Second, I do not suspect the intentions or motivations of the committee that seeks to appoint Professor Thapar to the Kluge Chair. However, as an informed member of the Indian diaspora, I sincerely urge you to reconsider the appointment. My objections have been organized as follows A. Prof. Thapar’s Lack of Required Skills B. Her Political Affiliations with Indian Communists C. Perceptions and Fears of the Indian American Community D. The Objectives of the Kluge Chair Center and the Library Of Congress I can provide you detailed documentary evidence for all my claims if you so desire. This is merely a brief letter.
A. Prof. THAPAR’s LACK OF REQUIRED SKILLS -The appointment of an applicant to the Kluge requires that the person be familiar with the literary, epigraphic, linguistic and archaeological sources which provide the primary data for this research. Unfortunately, Prof. Thapar does not come equipped with those skills and knowledge.
1. Linguistic Skills: From her own public admissions, we know that Prof. Thapar is ignorant of classical languages of India Pali/Prakrit, Tamil. Her knowledge of Sanskrit, the lingua franca of literate communities in ancient India, is quite rudimentary. Of the four linguistic groups of India viz., Tibeto-Burman, Dravidian, Austro-Asiatic and Indo-Aryan, she has little or no familiarity with the first three, and a fragmentary knowledge of the last. As a result, she is unable to do any reasonable linguistic analysis in her writings. The Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), with which she has been affiliated with for most of her career, had actually scuttled efforts to teach the classical languages of India within their premises, on the grounds that teaching Sanskrit will promote Hindu revivalism! Her own aversion towards Sanskrit is well known and documented. Next to English, considerable core/fundamental research on ancient India has been written and published in German, citations of which are largely conspicuous by their absence in her writings. It may be noted that Prof. Thapar has not translated even one published ancient Indian text ab initio, she has merely translated some passages from texts such as Bhagavata Purana, which already have dozens of existing translations.
2. Insufficient Knowledge of Literary Records: Several major Indian texts from the ancient period still lie untranslated, and most existing translations were done as much as a century ago. Much philological data has emerged in the last century, and fresh translations are needed to provide students with a more modern and robust perspective. Prof. Thapar’s own lack of the required linguistic skills forces her to ignore the non-translated texts. Instead, she is known to rely on the available outdated translations of ancient Indian texts and inscriptions a fact noted by many friendly scholars. For non-translated texts, she tends to rely on old Indices such as the Vedic Index from 1912. These indices and concordances are quite outdated and considered unsatisfactory by scholars doing state of the art research. In fact, a recent review of one of her writings (From Lineage to State to be specific) alludes that her analyses are akin to theoricising in empirical vacuity, precisely because of her non-familiarity with the primary literary sources from ancient India. Her own lack of familiarity with these sources is compounded by her total disdain for the utility of such studies. A recent review of her writings quotes her as saying there is nothing to be learnt from the ancient literature of India that has not already been learned'. I wonder if a scholar with such an attitude, coupled with incompetence in the required area can do serious research on historical consciousness in ancient India. Non-translated and/or non-published texts, inscriptions and other literary records from ancient India are typically not referenced in her writings even though she can easily access them from Indian libraries and manuscript collections.
3. Lack of skills in Paleography, Epigraphy and Related Fields: Inscriptions from ancient India are encountered in a myriad scripts. Mrs. Thapar cannot read more than 1 or 2 of these scripts. There do exist sources such as Epigraphia Indica, which give the text of these inscriptions. However, it is well known that the volumes are not updated regularly. Moreover, serious scholars often prefer to visit the sites of these and examine the evidence afresh. Her critics have shown that Prof. Thapar has actually managed to distort even the evidence available from the Epigraphia Indica. Many Indian texts are still in manuscript there are an estimated four million manuscripts in Indian libraries. These texts are often written in scripts that are no longer used. Prof. Thapar cannot read these manuscripts, and especially where the texts have not been published/translated yet, this is a serious lacuna. It may be noted that Prof. Thapar has not edited a single Indic text directly from manuscripts.
4. Incompetence in Archaeology: Prof. Thapar participated in two small archaeological excavations about 35 years ago, but thereafter, she has not benefited from the immense amounts of archaeological data being unearthed by professionals in India year after year, especially in recent years. In fact, she and a few other fellow Marxist historians have been at constant loggerheads with the archaeological survey of India for almost a decade now, because newly emerging data tends to be at variance with Marxist paradigms of Indian history. Recently, she, along with a few other Marxist historians even advocated a total moratorium on archaeological excavations in India for the next couple of years because the Indian archaeology establishment is allegedly saffronized and their work can boost sectarian tensions. In fact, it is these same set of historians who have thoroughly communalized (the use of this word in Indian English approximates the meaning enhance sectarianism)! Needless to say, such an attitude is not conducive to enhancing our understanding of ancient India.
One could argue that the craft of a historian goes beyond the above four skills, and also consists in interpreting all these primary data. However, a lack of skills required to collect the primary data can never be substituted by finesse in interpretations. What is the use of parading ones skills in armchair twisting of fashionable socio-anthropological theories if one is incapable of generating, collecting and comprehending primary data Scholarly differences of opinion are to be expected in a field like history, especially when it pertains to ancient India. However, what cannot be disputed is that a competency in the above-mentioned fields is an absolute requirement for a historian of ancient India.
It may be noted that Prof. Thapar’s publications are all secondary interpretations of selective and inadequate primary data. Her personal contribution in generating primary data of use to historians is practically nil.
Her disdain for traditional scholars of India, for archaeologists in India, and for the utility of learning Sanskrit and other classical languages and so on reflect an attitude which is not very suitable for a candidate aspiring to occupy the Kluge Chair.
B. POLITICAL AFFILIATIONS OF Prof. THAPAR - History as Political Propaganda:
The interpretations that Prof. Thapar gives to whatever primary data that can be handled by her, depends a lot on her own world view, and her resulting paradigms with regard to ancient India. This is where my second set of objections lies. Prof. Thapar is a Marxist historian, and is acknowledged as such even by scholars of Marxism outside India. Consequently, she has a very reductionist/narrow view of India’s past. For instance, she tends to exclude or diminish the importance of non-materialistic aspects of our culture and civilization. But more than that, she has a very negative opinion of the Hindu religious beliefs and spirituality. Her disdain for the intellectual and spiritual contributions of ancient India is reflected in her vehement public opposition to the teaching of Yoga in Indian schools. A subtle hate-mongering against Hindus and Hinduism seems to be an underlying theme in her writings. Even the school textbooks (I read them as a Grade VI student because they were required reading, mandated by the State) are not free from this bias. The bias is manifested in many ways, to the extent that other scholars have alleged that Prof. Thapar has distorted primary historical evidence to suit political expediency. For instance, it is alleged that she has white-washed history when it comes to the rule of Muslim rulers in stamping out expressions of indigenous religious beliefs of Indians. While one can certainly appreciate her social concerns that cause her to do all this, a professional historian is expected to draw a line before historiography becomes fiction dictated by ephemeral political ideologies. But anyone who has drawn attention to these deficiencies is immediately abused as a Brahminist and what not, by her and her supporters. Nationalism is a dirty word for Indian Marxism, and anything that could inspire Indians to feel pride in their culture is deprecated. Consistent with Indian Marxist ideology, she has tended to promote the antiquated colonial-missionary-racist paradigm of ancient India, even though she professes to do just the opposite. Scholars have noticed how her writings merely excerpt works from the colonial era peppered with politically correct jargon. Some scholars have even seen a strong parallel between her views and the Aryanist writings of the early 20th century. If the study of history in India is so thoroughly politicized these days, Mrs. Thapar must share a lot of the credit for the same. Born into aristocracy, she has been accused of leveraging her connections, and for promoting the hegemony of a small group of Marxist/Communist/Leftist scholars who have been thrusting the official history of India on several generations since 1970’s. For instance, her textbook for school children was mandatory reading for millions of students from 1966 to 2001! Consistent with the Indian Marxist political ideology, she has privileged one religion over the other. For instance, it suits Indian Marxists to glorify Islam, Christianity and Marxism and criticize Hinduism. Such tendencies are both clear and subtle in her writings. Her writings also tend to create an alarmist tendency amongst certain sections of Indian society, and give a boost to sectarianism, which ironically she derides. Prof. Thapar herself has been an advisor to the Leader of the Opposition Political Party if India, namely Mrs. Sonia Gandhi (President of the Congress Party), and is considered very close to her. She has repeatedly shared the dais with Communist leaders. Her alma mater is considered the Mecca of Indian Marxism, and leading lights of Communist terrorist movements of India and Nepal openly acknowledge their debt to that institute. Prof. Thapar has frequently made pointed attacks, in her public writings and in her speeches, against certain political parties and their leaders, particularly those belonging to the present ruling coalition in New Delhi. She has doggedly refused to condemn the large scale doctoring of history textbooks by the Communist ruled state governments of India, and has in fact sided with the ideologues of these political parties. Worst yet, she has constantly associated herself with an Indian organization called SAHMAT, whose office has been located right within the New Delhi branch of the Communist Party of India (Marxist). SAHMAT is well-known for its anti-Americanism, and is at the forefront of anti-US demonstrations periodically. Mrs. Thapar frequently uses their platforms for making attacks on certain Indian politicians, contributes to their publications and has her own pamphlets sponsored by them. Prof. Thapar is most welcome to subscribe to a particular political or religions ideology. The problem arises when her scholarly work becomes merely a subterfuge for political propaganda. It is impossible, in the eyes of the average Indian, to separate Thapar the Historian, from Thapar- the Politician. In recent years, there has been an upsurge in the interest in ancient Indian culture and religion amongst all sections of the Indian society. Newer technologies that have democratized education and dissemination of knowledge, have promoted this trend. Prof. Thapar has, however, expressed negative views on these trends quite often. In a publication ten years ago, she notes with disdain that Indian scholars in the west use the computer to facilitate their research. In a recent publication, she wonders if there should be state control on the Internet and media in India. And in interviews, she has lamented often that the barrier to entry for professional historiography has gotten lowered in recent years. Such an elitist mindset for a scholar wedded to Marxist historiography is somewhat paradoxical, and disturbing to me.
C. PERCEPTIONS OF THE INDIAN AMERICAN COMMUNITYProf. Thapar’s writings have also unfairly tarnished the illustrious Indian community in the United States. She has suggested often, without much provocation, that members of the community promote fundamentalism in India, and that they fund cranks and support fringe scholars rather than promote genuine scholarship. All this perhaps explains why the on-line petition protesting her appointment has drawn such a massive response. In a matter of 4 days, the petition gathered 1400+ signatures. It would be reasonable to assume that most of the supporters of this petition are from the US, given the low depth of penetration of the Internet in India. Some of the recurring themes in the protest notes of the signatories of the petition are: She is anti-Hindu, She is anti-India, her historiography is flawed, She is a Communist, She would be a strain in US Tax $, She represents colonial historiography, She is a CIA plant to ensure Western hegemony over India, She has promoted various forms of terrorism in India (directly or indirectly), She is anti-US. Clearly, some of the above allegations are outlandish, to say the least. For instance, I am aware that the Kluge Chair has been endowed with private funds, and so her employment would not draw my tax dollars. Nevertheless, the extreme display of emotions by many of the protestors is disturbing, even to me, who would have preferred a totally academic mode of objecting to her appointment. I would have hoped that the Library Of Congress had appointed a less controversial, and more accomplished scholar to the Kluge Chair. As a response to this petition, Marxist and Communist groups immediately swung into action, and must have faxed you letters in support of Prof. Thapar’s appointment. That merely vindicates my assessment of her as a largely political scholar. I hope the Library Of Congress does not seek to promote particular Indian political parties and ideologies by appointing a person like her. The petitioners are being labeled as Right Wing Hindus and what not a total mockery of our Constitutional Right of Freedom of Speech. Unfortunately, some well-meaning but ill-informed American academicians, swayed by their commitment to Academic Freedom have also chimed in. As is the case with immigrants from all the countries of the South, there is an undercurrent of opinion in the Indian community that the US tends to plant its stooges on Third World countries to further its own interests. I believe that Prof. Thapar’s appointment to the Kluge Chair will precisely promote such perceptions, at least in a large section of the Indian American community. Given Prof. Thapar’s frequent political activities, Indian Americans might even feel that the Library of Congress is trying to promote particular political parties in India at the cost of others by appointing her to the Kluge Chair. Since Prof. Thapar and some of her colleagues in India are well known to have been thrust from the top by Left and Left-of-Center governments, her appointment to a prestigious chair in the United States is bound to provoke some amusement, if not outright derision. One cannot also overlook the constant charge of the people of Third World Countries that the West patronizes the new informers from the developing nations to promote their own interests. Prof. Thapar’s appointment to the Kluge Chair is again being perceived in the same manner by the petitioners, as I have elaborated above. Coupled with all these factors is the sense of insecurity of a typical minority community in the United States. Post 9-11, it is being urged that we should try to understand our neighbors better. We ought to learn more about non-western cultures so that such unfortunate incidents are not repeated. Since Prof. Thapar has portrayed Hindus in particular and India in general in a negative light, it is feared that her presence in the US will only serve to strengthen the negative prejudices against India, Indians and Hinduism in the minds of the general American public. We are a peace loving minority community contributing a lot to the realization and enrichment of the American dream. Therefore, we are very concerned that the Library Of Congress has appointed a person who will distort the general American perception of who we are or who we were.
D. THE KLUGE CHAIR AND THE Library Of Congress: Please permit me to comment on the objectives for the establishment of the Kluge Chair. It has been stated by the LOC in its appointment announcement (dt. 17 April 2003) that Through a generous endowment from its namesake, the Library of Congress established the John W. Kluge Center in 2000 to bring together the world's best thinkers to stimulate, energize, and distill wisdom from the Library's rich resources and to interact with policymakers in Washington, D.C. The Kluge Center houses five senior Kluge Chairs (American Law and Governance, Countries and Cultures of the North Countries and Cultures of the South, Technology and Society, and ModernCulture); other senior-level chairs (Henry A. Kissinger Chair, Cary and Ann Maguire Chair in American History and Ethics, and the Harissios Papamarkou Chair in Education); and nearly 25 post-doctoral fellows. I believe that an occupant of the Kluge Chair named Countries and Cultures of the South ought to possess good skills in the areas mentioned by me in Section A above. Moreover, he/she is expected to promote a genuine knowledge and understanding of the countries of the South that is free of western hegemonistic discourse, and is rooted in indigenous traditions. Otherwise, the activity of that thinker occupying this chair would be a mere arm-chair theoretical exercise, not rooted in the ethos of his/her own country, and having no basis in the thinking of the Indian masses. I fail to understand how Prof. Thapar meets these requirements. The announcement on the appointment of Prof. Thapar states Through a generous endowment from its namesake, the Library of Congress established the John W. Kluge Center in 2000 to bring together the world's best thinkers to stimulate, energize, and distill wisdom from the Library's rich resources and to interact with policymakers in Washington, D.C. Further, the information web-page on Kluge Chairs says "the only obligations during their residency will be to help craft and participate in some meetings or conversations open to Members of Congress and congressional staff, and to offer at least one public presentation for the broader public policy community in Washington." Given Prof. Thapar’s left-of-center political affiliations, and her skewed understanding of ancient and modern India, is it desirable that she should guide US policy-makers on India Many in the Indian American community believe her to be an anti-Indian (!), and therefore she does not seem to be a good choice for the chair. How can a scholar, closely associated with anti-American movements in India, be trusted to guide US policy-makers correctly The announcement refers to her credentials in the following words The author of many seminal works on the history of ancient India, her volume of the Penguin History of India has been continuously in print since 1966. Her latest publication is "Early India: From the Origins to AD 1300." Other recent works are "History and Beyond," "Cultural Pasts: Essays in Early Indian History," and "History and Beyond." In her published works, Thapar has pioneered both the study of early Indian texts as history and the integration of the critical use of archaeology with written sources. I want to point out that two of the three books mentioned above are merely collections of her old essays, which suffer from the faults that I have alluded to in Section A and B above. In recent years, one has not seen any significant genuine original academic output from her (other than Early India, a revision of an older book of hers after almost four decades) and much of her fresh publications have been political pamphlets, and politically loaded articles in elite-read English newspapers and brochures of SAHMAT. The claim that she pioneered the integration of archaeology with written sources is often repeated, but does not stand to scrutiny. It is not out of place here to mention that Prof. Thapar is quite resourceful when it comes to publishing the same article of hers in 4-5 different books! As an example, her tribute to the father of Indian Marxist Historiography, titled The Contribution of D. D. Kosambi to Indology, has been published in three of her books (Interpreting Early India, History and Beyond, and Cultural Pasts) and in a journal. And a recent article of hers on Aryans has already appeared in four volumes with little or no variation. The announcement further lists her several achievements- During her illustrious career, Thapar has held many visiting posts in Europe, the United States and Japan. She is an Honorary Fellow at Lady Margaret Hall, Oxford, and at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), University of London. She has honorary doctorates from the University of Chicago, the Institut National des Langues et Civilisations Orientales in Paris, the University of Oxford and the University of Calcutta. I do not wish to counter this claim, because objections to the same will necessarily be subjective in a large measure. Suffice it to say that according to her critics, this has a lot to do with the hegemony established in the writing of history in her own home (India) through means, fair and foul. It has been alleged that an intricate power play has ensured that students from the Center for Historical Studies (of which Prof. Thapar is a founding member) in New Delhi and other similar institutions patronized by her and her colleagues (who have been permanent fixtures in their governing committees) are able to get into institutions in the West, from where they are able to invite their erstwhile mentors. I am sure you will agree that such tactics are detrimental to academic freedom, and to a free blossoming of academic enquiry. The support for her in a section of the American academia has complex reasons, but in any case it is at total variance with the wishes and aspirations of a large section of Indians and Indian Americans. The current collaboration between certain scholars in South Asian studies, who are based in the USA and in Europe, with Marxist historians in India is a matter for further study and is better left out here. I can do not better than citing an excellent on-line essay named The Axis of Neo-Colonialism. In Nazi Germany, all inconvenient views were eliminated from public and academic discourse after being branded as Jewish. In current academic discourse on Indology and South Asian Studies, all dissenting voices are similarly being stigmatized by attaching labels such as Hindu fundamentalists, Hindu right wing and Indian nationalist. We know what happened in Nazi Germany. An open discussion of issues is often preferable to the tyranny of labels.
I am not claiming that all of Professor Thapar’s publications are sub-standard. In fact, some of them have been quite good and ground breaking. However, given her four decade long academic career, they are quite few and far in between. I want to emphasize once again that I am speaking as a member of the Indian American Community, who was forced to study Prof. Thapar’s textbooks as a child, and who grew up to realize, as many others, how we had been subjected to a biased and prejudiced presentation of our own culture and civilization as children. I have the utmost respect for freedom of American academe, and wish that Indian academe was similarly free and productive. Please do not permit a renowned and fair organization such as the Library of Congress to be a party to this travesty. The Kluge Chair was better left vacant. Unfortunately, in your announcement today, you have endorsed her appointment with the following words "In brief, our response is that we are most pleased to have an Indian historian of Professor Thapar's distinction with us at the Library of Congress. Her many books already in the collections of the Library of Congress testify that her work is sympathetic to the ancient Indian and Hindu historical and cultural traditions in highlighting their variegated and undogmatic quality, and in making clear the complexity of Indian civilization." The first part of your response is of course along predictable lines. You are entitled to your estimation of her work. However, I do question your last claim. How did you decide that her work is "sympathetic to the ancient Indian and Hindu historical and cultural traditions...." I see no objective evidence that the affected parties, namely (representatives of) the Indian American, Indian or Hindu communities have endorsed her appointment. Let me leave it at that, and move on. I have read practically all of her existing publications. And now I look forward to reading the fruit of her 'cutting-edge' research on 'historical consciousness in Ancient India' at the Library of Congress. Sincerely yours, Vishal Agarwal
She has written some articles that involve Classical Tamil Poetry. However, she has completely relied on fragmentary translations in these articles. In her recent book "Early India" (OUP, 2002), RomilaThapar has incorrectly claimed that the caste system was introduced into the Tamil country (that is the southern part of peninsular India) in the 7th century A.D. during the Pallava rule. If she had had any detailed knowledge of Tamil language and Sangam literature or if she had read seminal research works that have been published over the past 100 years on this subject matter by eminent scholars like U.V.S.Aiyar and K.A.N.Sastri, she would have known otherwise. She would have known that the Sangam literature itself portrays a Tamil society that had the varna (popularly known as the caste) system well integrated into its social structure. Not only this corpus, but even some anthologies and commentaries on them had been put together by the 7th century A.D. Also, by the 6th century A.D. a new genre of bhakti (devotional) works had been compiled in Tamil and the poets of these compositions were patronized by the Pallava kings. It is my concern that Thapar would propagate very false notions about Early India in general, and the South in particular, because she doesn't possess the requisite skills needed to pursue any research in this area. The primary of those skills being a knowledge of Tamil language and an intimate familiarity with its literary and epigraphic tradition. A respectable position as the Kluge chair should rather utilize the services of a competent scholar. There are also other languages such as Nahali, which do not fall into any of these categories. It may be assumed safely that Prof. Thapar has no clue about these isolates. Obviously, she cannot use the field of historical linguistics for her research in any meaningful manner. This is big drawback especially when she writes on the Vedic period. In recent years, she has started dropping names such as Der Rgveda, K. F. Geldner and so on, but the mode of referencing leaves the reader clueless as to what sentences in the referenced book are meant. Contained in her book Sakuntala: Texts, Readings, Histories. Kali for Women, New Delhi [2002] For instance, even her recent admirer, Professor Michael Witzel has noted that in her History of India [1966], she has merely excerpted data from the Cambridge Ancient History and Rhys David’s Buddhist India, both of which were written around the beginning of the 20th century (See page 86 of Michael Witzel. 1995. Early Indian History: Linguistic and Textual Parameters, in George Erdosy (ed.), The Indo-Aryans of Ancient South Asia: 85-125. Walter de Gryuter: Berlin. Elsewhere, he has suggested that Thapar has used the Puranic data uncritically in her writings. R. N. Nandi’s Aryans Revisited, Munshiram Manoharal, New Delhi [2002], page 10, fn. 20. On page 20, Nandi shows how excessive reliance on piecemeal indexing by the Vedic Index has lead Thapar to draw false conclusions in her From Lineage to State a text that is recommended reading at the JNU history courses, and is often held by her as an exemplary publication, to be reprinted in all her later anthologies. See Sudhanshu Ranade’s History Make it or Break it in The Hindu, 22 April 2003. It was available at http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/br/stories/2003042200030300.htm One could give here the example of Harry Falk, who walked to the Asokan inscriptions in situ before writing his book Schrift im alten Indien [1993] See http://www.bharatvani.org/books/htemples2/app4.htm for an example. Saffron is a sacred color for Indic religious traditions. For Prof. Thapar and her colleagues however, saffronization means imposition of Hindu right wing agenda on secular institutions. In my opinion, the way in which Prof. Thapar et al use Hindu symbols and sacred objects in a derogatory fashion reflects their aversion towards the manifestation of Indic religions and cultures in our daily lives. To help you understand this issue better, consider the historical fact that the Nazis gave such a bad meaning to Swastika a sacred Indian religious and cultural symbol, that Indian Americans are often hesitant to display the Swastika during their religious functions in the United States because it might invite charges of neo-Nazi sympathies. Dilip Chakrabarti has also this point passim, in his Colonial Indology, Munshiram Manoharlal, New Delhi [1997]. Thapar is quoted as one of the Marxist historians in the entry 'Hinduism' of 'A Dictionary of The Marxist Thought' (Tom Bottomore et al, 1983, Harvard University Press, p. 204). Ronald Inden, in his Imagining India [1990:pp. 154-156, 197] clearly refers to Thapar as a Marxist historian. Addressing the National Convention against Saffronization of Education organized by SAHMAT on 4-6 August 2001 in New Delhi, Thapar argues that Instead of further professionalising the subjects taught at school and college, they are being replaced with subjects that have virtually no pedagogical rigour, such as Yoga and Consciousness or cultivating a Spirituality Quotient. These cannot form the core of knowledge and replace subjects with a pedagogical foundation, although yoga can be an additional activity. The argument is spurious, because Yoga is being taught successfully in thousands of schools and other public and private institutions all over the world. The only opposition to the teaching of Yoga in European and N. American countries comes from close-minded Christian priests. The text of her talk at the SAHMAT sponsored Seminar is available on-line at http://www.ercwilcom.net/~indowindow/sad/godown/edu/rtsefp.htm See my review of her NCERT textbook for Std. VI at http://vishalagarwal.bharatvani.org/RomilaNCERTVI.doc As an example, see http://www.bharatvani.org/books/htemples2/app4.htm and http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/articles/harshakashmir.html This back-door revival of the Aryan Invasion Theory by Thapar et al even in her earlier publications has not fooled many people. Speaking of an old publication of hers, for instance, Edmund LEACH [LEACH, Edmund. 1990. Aryan Invasions Over Four Millennia. in E. Ohnuki-Tierney (ed.), Culture Through Time, Anthropological Approaches. Stanford University Press: Stanford] remarks Why is this sort of thing so attractive Who finds it attractive Why has the development of early Sanskrit come to be so dogmatically associated with an Aryan invasion In some cases, the association seems to be matter of intellectual inertia. Thus, Thapar (1969), who provides a valuable survey of the evidence then available, clearly finds the whole movement of peoples argument a nuisance, but at the end of the day she falls into line. Dr. Nurul Hasan was a politician, the Education Minister appointed by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. Concerning him and his proteges, archaeologist Dilip Chakrabarti remarks (on page 13 of Colonial Indology. Munshiram Manoharlal: New Delhi, 1997) To thwart the strength of the old Congress party stalwarts, the then Prime Minister of the country, Mrs. Indira Gandhi, came to depend significantly on the support of the left political parties, and recruited in the process to her cabinet a History professor, putting him in charge of education. This professor, an Oxford D.Phil with a firm belief in the progressive, i.e., left ideas, was also the son of an important government functionary of British India and related by marriage to one of the powerful native princely houses of the north. Till his date in harness as the governor of a left-controlled Indian state, he acted as the patron saint of a wide variety of historians claiming progressive political beliefs and hoping for a slice of the establishment cake. See the relevant remarks at http://www.bharatvani.org/reviews/millennium.html . A constant refrain in her writings is that the Upper-Caste Hindus are somehow conspiring to oppress everyone else. While such a fantasy converges with the frequent outpourings of Islamists, Christian Missionaries and Communists in India, it may be pointed out that the leading lights if Indian Marxism (Thapar included) are themselves all of Upper-Caste Hindu origins. In fact, a section of the Dalit movement in India today rejects this Marxist sponsored version of secularism and Social Engineering precisely because of the suspicion that Indian Marxists are prolonging upper-caste hegemony. A detailed discussion of this facet of Indian politics is beyond the scope of the present letter. See I learnt the ABC or Marxism at the JNU in The Statesman, 4 April 2003. Examples of these can be seen at http://www.bharatvani.org/shourie/eminenthistorians1.html in the article Not just Whitewash, Hogwash too. Thapar has NEVER condemned the distortions of history textbooks in Communist ruled states of India. See the on-line article CPI(M), SAHMAT left Homeless, in The Hindu, 06 February 2002, http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/2002/02/06/stories/2002020606000100.htm The association of Thapar with Marxist historiography is an open secret in India. An article in the Times of India (New Delhi edn.) dt. 24 February 2002, calls her a hardcore Marxist. Her interpretations of ancient India are treated in the sections on Marxist historiography by Shankar Goyal in his Recent Historiography of Ancient India, Kusumanjali Prakashan: Jodhpur (1997). Ravi Shanker Kapoor, in his More Equal than Others A Study of the Indian Left, Vision Books: New Delhi (2000), which discusses the tyrannical Marxist intellectual hegemony in independent India, also classifies Romila Thapar as a Leftist historian (p. 140). In theory, if Internet and information technology are not controlled by the state then those with access to them will claim to be free of the fear of becoming closed minds. They will be however, only a fraction of the population. Will the kind of knowledge pursued by this fraction ensure a society committed to the freedom of the individual and humanist values Technological proficiency by itself is no a sufficient safeguard against the increasing tendency in India to be comfortable with the soft underbelly of fascism and not recognize it for what it is pp. xxvii-xxviii in INDIA, Another Millennium Ed. By Romila Thapar. (Viking: New Delhi, 2000). And pray, how could one safeguard media from fascism By appointing Romila Thapar to the board of Prasar Bharati (as was actually done by sympathetic politicians in the past), an apex government body controlling and guiding the government communication media! Available at http://www.petitiononline.com/108india/petition.html A critical review of her recent book by Dr. Sanjay Subrahmanyam is available on-line at http://www.hinduonnet.com/lr/stories/2003040600110200.htm Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bombay, 1977-78, Nos. 52-53 The Axis of Neo-Colonialism, by Rajiv Malhotra [2002], available at http://www.sulekha.com/column.asp cid=218625 http://voiceofdharma.com/indology/klugethapar.html
PBS show on India and research questions it posesThis is in the context of the six-part series on Story of
India being aired on PBS. http://www.pbs.org/thestoryofindia/ On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 8:22 AM, <Vshertu@aol.com> wrote: Namaskar:
As discussed with you all I am forwarding this e-mail, which I wrote to Dr. Kak, about PBS show on India, . Please provide the input pertaining to three topics:
Thank you,
Vande Mataram
Vijay Shertukde
Namaskar Dr. Subhash Kak:
Monday I watched the first two hour show on PBS Channel produced and narrated by Michael Wood about India. These three two hour each series about history, religion, and cultural of India.
There were many inconsistencies throughout the show especially the one that got my attention is the Aryan Invasion Theory and migration of Africans to Kerala. I know that Dr. David frawley, yourself (In search of the Cradle of Civilization) and Danino, Michel (The Invasion That Never Was) have done lot of research and written books about Aryan Migration Theory. I do not have knowledge about the earlier migration from African origin. The later part of the show was more on Buddhism and Jainism and I felt that it did not do much justice to Hindu Religion. It is very sad that foreigners like Mr. Wood go to India, collect the information out of context, then put it together as an authentic information for public to swallow about India without giving due importance to Hindu Religion. We watch this helplessly because some of us neither have the scholarly research information nor the strong and effective voice channel nor the required recognition to effectively speak against such blunders.
I would like to request someone like yourself who has scholarly information about the past history to communicate with PBS and with Mr. Wood about this and set the record straight. If we do not raise our voice then whatever was shown in the program will become a norm and the public will blindly accept this. It will be very difficult to undo this later.
I would appreciate your response and reaction to such shows. I am also sending this e-mail to other members of the FHRS group to discuss this issue in their teleconference. In fact we all should take many such projects through TV and Movie Media to effectively build up the conveniently forgotten past. Dr. Adityanji, you can put this letter in the FHRS to get the reaction from others.
Vande Matarm
Vijay Shertukde, Conference on Indian history, geopolitics and civilization (Jan. 9-11, 2009, IIC, New Delhi)
Indic Studies Foundation, California and Akhila Bhartiya Itihas Sankalan Yojnaa
January 9-11, 2009
Consensus of ICIH-2009 (Conference on Indian History, Geopolitics, and Civilisation)
The conference was convened to have a cross-pollination of ideas on various facets of Indic studies like history, culture and geopolitics and related topics. The overriding purpose is to diagnose the flawed representation of Indian history and to map the correct mechanism for presenting true history on rational basis founded on authentic facts. It also discussed ways and means to delineate the appropriate and correct path for translating the ideas to workers at ground level.
The ICIH-2009 delineate that: 1. More and more people are realising that Indian history has been distorted by Colonial-Missionary historians, and that it has been misrepresented by some motivated historians in post-Colonial period. Steps should be taken to remove these distortions. 2. Current history, as taught in academic institutions, is not borne out by archaeological and other scientific evidence. 3. The myth that India lacked historical agency, created by Hegel and propagated by misinformed historians, is incorrect. India has a sense of history and historical tradition going back to Rigvedic times. It developed in many phases and in various forms down to the early medieval period, but it received set back due to British control on Indian knowledge system. 4. The periodization of Indian history is wrong because it does not reflect the twists and turns Indian spirit occurring in different epoch of its long history. 5. A correct idea of 'India, i.e. Bharata' is essential for understanding Indian history. 6. The chronology of India hitherto accepted is falsified. It needs to be corrected. 7. The delegates commit themselves to provide this correction on the basis of literary, archaeological, geological, scientific, linguistic, genetic, and other kinds of evidence.
If Indian spirit and psyche is properly understood, in its correct perspective of past present and the future, India can play its proper historical role on world stage and provide humanity the vision of peace and brotherhood so badly needed today. Spiritualization of human race is, in fact, the theme of Indian way of life, the burden of her eternal songs, backbone of her existence, the foundation of her being and the raison d'etre of her very existence.
Dhanyavad
Dr. Kosla Vepa , Director Indic Studies Foundation Prof. Shivaji Singh, Chairman of the Conference
PRESS RELEASE NO PROOF OF ARYANS MASSACRING INDUS VALLEY PEOPLE Historians Expose Various Myths and Distortions related to Ancient Indian History International Conference on Indian History, Civilisation and Geopolitics (ICIH2009) opens in New Delhi New Delhi January 9: "There is absolutely no proof that the Vedas were written in around 1200 BC and that the invading Aryans massacred the people of the Indus Valley. Unfortunately, these malicious distortions are still being taught in our schools as facts," said Dr. B.B. Lal, former Director General of Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), on the first day of the International Conference on Indian History, Civilisation and Geopolitics 2009 (ICIH2009) which began here today Warning that new distortions in Indian history are being created even today, Prof Lal in his paper presented to the conference said it is the duty of Indian historians to set these distortions right through cogent evidence and sustainable arguments. Though the perception and mindset of historians play a dominant role in history writing, it is important for Indians to identify and challenge the distortions that have been deliberately introduced into their historical narrative over the centuries, he said. In his speech, Prof. Shivaji Singh, Former Head of Department, Ancient History, Gorakhpur University, rejected the oft-repeated charge that Indians have no sense of history. "Ancient Indians had a robust historical tradition that originated in the Rig Vedic times and continued to develop and proliferate till the end of the medieval period, This tradition has created a rich and huge mass of historical literature that is unparalleled in the world," he said. Prof. Singh explained that the indigenous Indian sense of history is unique because its main purpose is man's self-fulfillment and self-realisation instead of vague objective such as furtherance of freedom, rationalism and individualism that are prevalent in the West. "You have to understand that the Indian sense of history is grounded in Indian culture and it should not be judged by the yardstick of how the Westerners write their history," he added. Dr. Kosla Vepa, Director of the US-based Indic Studies Foundation, the organizers of the three-day meet, spoke about the demeaning condescension that many Western historians have bestowed upon India. "Books on Indian history sold abroad deliberately neglect our ancient history so as to minimize and sideline its contributions. At the same time, they try to whitewash the horrors that the British rule inflicted on India, such as the large-scale famines triggered by colonial policies. Changing the content of the text-books worldwide and especially in the West to correct these distortions should be our goal," he said.
About the Conference The International Conference on Indian History, Civilisation and Geopolitics (ICIH2009) is being organized at New Delhi's India International Centre by the US-based Indic Studies Foundation in association with Akhila Bharatiya Itihasa Sankalana Yojana (ABISY). The three-day Conference (January 9-11) is hosting over 100 distinguished scholars and historians from India and all over the world and has been hailed as a landmark event in the interpretation of ancient Indian history. The Conference offers a platform for scholars and historians to challenge many aspects of ancient India history as they are taught today and expose various myths that have been presented as facts by the Raj historians of the 19th century About Indic Studies Foundation The Indic Studies Foundation, based in the San Francisco Bay Area, USA, is a not-for-profit, public-benefit Corporation. It seeks to propagate a more accurate approach based on reason and rationality for the study and dissemination of the Indian civilizational ethos in the world, particularly to the USA and India. The Foundation undertakes a series of seminars and conferences annually which exclusively focus on Indic history, with a view to research its distortions, to investigate and assess the consequences of such distortions and try to remedy the situation by facilitating impartial and professional research into Indic history. It also conducts programs to correct the distorted Indian history in the academia, media and public perception and to develop an education program to produce future Indian leaders. About Akhila Bharatiya Itihasa Sankalana Yojana (ABISY) ABISY is dedicated to researching and writing Indian history spanning the last 5000 years. Major projects undertaken by it include determining the exact date of the Mahabrarata as the sheet anchor of ancient Indian history, researches into "kaalaganana" (time-reckoninig) in Hindu traditions and researches into the now-lost 'Saraswati' river. Prof. Shivaji Singh, Retd. Head of Dept. of Ancient History and Archaeology of the Gorakhpur University, is the President of ABISY. Dr. Sharad Hebalkar, author of "Ancient Ports of India" is its General Secretary.
Sarasvati Nadi Shodh Prakalp (headed by Dr. S. Kalyanaraman) is associated with ABISY, doing researches on the Vedic river Sarasvati, the Indian Ocean Community and the National Water Grid. A series of seminars were held by ABISY and books published on the 1857 War of Independence under the guidance of Dr. Satish C. Mittal, former Head of Department of Archaeology and History, Kurukshetra University. ABISY has conducted hundreds of seminars on Indian history and published over 300 titles in all Indian languages. "Itihasa Darpan" is a scholarly journal brought out by ABISY and edited by Prof. T.P. Verma, Retd. Head of Dept. of Ancient History and Archaeology, Benares Hindu University. ABISY has Itihasa Sankalana Samitis in each state and each district of India. Special projects are undertaken by these Samitis to write local history under the series 'Through the Ages.' This series has published popular titles such as "Melkote through the Ages" and "Varanasi through the Ages." The Venue International Conference on Indian History, Civilization and Geopolitics- ICIH 2009 January 09th (Friday) to 11th (Sunday), 2009 India International Centre, 40 Lodi Estate, New Delhi, India For more information, please contact: K.G. Suresh 9818617350 Kosla Vepa 9971949351 Satyendra Bhardwaj 9811486488 ICIH2009 Website: http://indicstudies.us/icih_conf http://in.jagran.yahoo.com/news/national/general/5_1_5144663.html Press coverage in Hindi in Jagaran daily.
New Delhi Reviewing the various perspectives to the Indic civilisation and giving a re-look at how the history of India has been written will be on focus during a three-day conference that opened here today. 'The International Conference on Indian History, Civilisation and Geopolitics' was being attended by delegates from across India and abroad, including countries like the US and Sri Lanka. Former Union Minister Jagmohan, former Foreign Secretary Kanwal Sibal and noted defence analyst Uday Bhaskar are participating in the seminar, organised by the Indic Studies Foundation, California and Akhila Bhaarateeya Itihaasa Sankalana Yojanaa (ABISY). In the inaugural session, ABISY President and Conference Chairman Prof Shivaji Singh argued against the"colonial myth" that ancient Indians did not have sense of history and said the history of India should be"rewritten"to" expose colonial and post-colonial historians'ulterior motives". The paper of noted historian B B Lal, who could not attend the meet due to personal reasons, was read out. Lal elaborated on, what he called, the"distortions" in Indian history, especially on the" Aryan migration theory". Indic Studies Foundation Director Kosla Vepa said the goal of organising such worskshops is to try to change the content of the"textbooks worldwide, especially in the English-speaking countries"which deal with Indic civilisation in a"cavalier fashion". http://www.indopia.in/India-usa-uk-news/latest-news/473156/National/1/20/1
Don't View
History Through Western Eyes
|