Distortions

Spatio-Temporality in Hindu Studies

February 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, Katriya and Brāhmaa 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 Upaniads are a particularly delicate case; the problem, stated in simplified form, has been whether the Upaniads 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 Upaniadic style. The secular approach of the Upaniads 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 Upaniads 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 Upaniads 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 gveda onwards, not only in the tenth book, but even in what is known as the older gveda, 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]


In other words, Western assumptions of time and space can be potentially distorting when applied uncritically in an Indian context.


[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
By Pramod Kumar (Organiser
January 25, 2009)

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.

The Indic Studies Foundation seeks to propagate a more accurate approach based on reason and rationality for the study and dissemination of the Indian civilisational ethos in the world, particularly to the USA and India. The 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 Mahabharata as the sheet anchor of ancient Indian history, researches into kaalaganana (time-reckoninig) in Hindu traditions and researches into the now-lost Saraswati river.

Dr Swamy further said willful distortions in writing Indian history have been occurring solely due to state support and patronage since the British times until today. “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 asked. He said myths spread by biased historians have overtaken Indian history while actual events and places in our history have been declared myths! “Not long ago, the Saraswati river, the submerged city of Dwarka and Ram Sethu were ridiculed as myths. But their reality has been proved by archaeology and satellite imagery,” he added.

Lashing out at colonial historians for creating a vicious myth that women were discriminated against in ancient India, noted scholar Dr S Ram Mohan said scriptures such as Manu Smriti accorded a very high status to women and deprived sections. Quoting dozens of slokas from the three major code books of Hindus to prove the exalted and enlightened status women enjoyed in ancient India, Dr Mohan, who is also Additional Member (Finance), Railway Board, said: “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.” He said all three Smritis have recommended lenient penalties for women compared to men and have prescribed death penalty for rape of a woman under police custody. Such kind of enlightened status of women was not found anywhere else in the world during the ancient times,” he added.

Dr BB Lal, former Director General of Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), said in a paper presented at the conference on first day that 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, he said. Stating that new distortions in Indian history are being created even today, he 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.

Prof. Shivaji Singh, former Head of Department, Ancient History, Gorakhpur University, and president of ABISY, 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. He 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.

According to Kosla Vepa, executive director of Indic Studies Foundation, the objective of the conference was to decolonise various aspects of ancient Indian history and its chronology which were deliberately distorted and misdated during the British Raj with a view to causing confusion and a sense of inferiority among Indians. The conference aimed to contribute towards correcting this mangled historical narrative of the Indian civilisation. “Much of the ancient Indian history taught to our youth today has absolutely no basis in fact and is not supported by modern research. This is causing terrible cultural damage to our society and has to be set right urgently by taking a more rational view of the past,” he added. He also 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 minimise 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 textbooks worldwide and especially in the West to correct these distortions should be our goal,” he added.

Speaking at the conference on second day, Prof. Narahari Achar said most of the previous attempts at astronomical dating of the famous epic made the critical error of equating the Sanskrit word graha with a planet. “However, graha actually meant not only a planet but an heavenly object moving through the sky that can ‘grasp’ such as a comet or asteroid. Once we understand this, all apparent confusion and contradiction in the planetary positions given in the Mahabharata disappears. Though the epic has been variously dated from 5000 BC to 1000 BC by historians, this is for the first time that a scholar has taken into account the movement of planets excluding the comets to reproduce by simulation the astronomical references given in the Mahabharata. The year 3067 BCE arrived at by this method is consistent with the Hindu tradition and correlates perfectly with the time references given in Rigveda and Puranas for the epic,” he added.

Internationally acclaimed mathematician and philosopher Prof. CK Raju revealed that calculus was an Indian invention that was transmitted by Jesuit priests to Europe from Cochin in the second half of 16th century. “Indian infinite series has been known to British scholars since at least 1832, but no scholar tried to establish the connection with the calculus attributed to Newton and Leibnitz. When the Europeans received the Indian calculus, they couldn’t understand it properly because the Indian philosophy of mathematics is different from the Western philosophy of mathematics. It took them about 300 years to fully comprehend its working. The calculus was used by Newton to develop his laws of physics,” he added.

http://www.organiser.org/dynamic/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=274&page=36

 

Defalsification of Indian history
By Dr. Subramanian Swamy (Organiser, January 25, 2009 )

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 fabrication of our History begins with the falsification of our chronology.

The accepted history of no country can 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 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.

For the last two weeks the Organiser is carrying a series of articles on the NCERT textbooks prescribed for students at the primary, secondary and higher secondary schools. We have found these books written with a peculiar mindset, to denationalise and deculturise the young Indian. These books fail to make the children aware of their true heritage. These books seem to distort even India's freedom struggle, Mahatma Gandhi's role and try to divide the society into different caste and class segments. Their idea is to convince the children that India as a nation came to exist only after August 15, 1947.

We request the parents, teachers, students and scholars to join this academic exercise to expose the shenanigans behind promotion of these books in Indian schools. —Editor

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 per cent Muslims. India despite 800 years of brutal Islamic rule, remained 80 per cent 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.
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).

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 recognised 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 DR Mankad, Koti Venkatachelam, KD Sethna, and others), it can be conclusively shown that indeed 6,451 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 realise 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 Chandravansa 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 BC, Maurya Chandragupta c. 1534 BC, Harsha Vikramaditya (Parmar) c. 82 BC.

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 AD. 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 BC. (2) A number of Tibetan documents place Buddha at 2100 BC. (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 RK Mukherjee has said) what does not appear in the principal edicts.

The accepted history of no country can 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 Chakravartian 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.

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

– George Orwell in his novel '1984'.
(Thamizhaga Anthanar Varalaaru – History of Brahmins of Tamil Nadu - Vol-II-Page599).


As rightly expressed in those immortal words by George Orwell, the Indians have been fed with distorted history by the Western Christian elite before independence and the same has been continued even after independence, thanks to the takeover of the nation's history by the Marxists and Christian stooges, who continued the dark and sinister legacy of Max Mueller and McCauley. As an important part of the perverted history, which was planted by the western scholars, the so-called St.Thomas's arrival, life and death were thrust on South India. This thrust gave a solid foundation to the Church to claim as if Christianity was also an indigenous religion.

As brilliantly shown in these columns by Mr.Sundaram for the last four days, many attempts have been made at regular intervals to impose the concocted history of Thomas on the people, thereby removing the facts from their minds, about the persecution of Hindus and destroying of Hindu Temples by the Christian invaders (Portuguese, French and British) from the fifteenth century onwards.

One such attempt, in the line of Arulappa and Acharya Paul, was made by a writer by name Deivanayagam, who wrote a book titled, 'Vivliyam (Bible), Thirukkural, Saiva Siddantham - Oppu Ayvu (Comparative Research)', which was published in 1985-86 by none other than the 'International Institute of Tamil Studies', Adayar, Madras, either without any application of mind, or, as a deliberate act of connivance. Shockingly Deivanayagam was also awarded a Doctorate by the University of Madras. Deivanayagam had predetermined to conclude his book with a finding that Thiruvalluvar was a Christian and a disciple of the so-called St.Thomas and most of the Saiva Sidhantha and the vivid knowledge found in Thiruklural were nothing but the sayings of The Bible. In order to achieve this devious motive, he distorted and misinterpreted the verses of Kural and Shivite Philosophical Works and completed the book. Later on, Tamil and Shivite scholars protested against this and the 'Dharmapuram Adheenam', a famous Shivite Mutt, came out with a book of refutation written by Tamil Shivite Scholar Arunai Vadivel Mudaliar and released it amongst a congregation of eminent Scholars, who strongly criticized Deivanayagam for his perversion of history. This was done mainly to prevent the usage of such deceitful materials by the future generations for research activities. (Ref: www.hamsa.org – Ishvar Sharan)

The planting of the so-called St.Thomas's story was not only to have a foundation for Christianity in India, but also to spread it through out the country. This fabrication succeeded slightly, over the years, in the areas of Madras, Nagappatinam and Pondicherry, mainly because of the fact that the 'Kapaleeshwarar Temple', Mylapore, 'Vel Ilankanni Amman Temple' near Nagappattinam and 'Vedapureeshwarar Temple', Pondicherry were destroyed and Santhome Basilica, Velankanni Church (Our Lady of Health Basilica) and the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Immaculate Conception, Pondicherry were built on their remains respectively. Well known scholars of Archeology have established that, the details of the destruction of original Kapaleeshwarar Temple could be found in Tamil inscriptions on the walls of the Marundeeswarar Temple in Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai, even today!

But, the glorious religious tradition and cultural heritage of Sanatana Dharma had been so hugely established that, despite the cooperation from the Dravidian racists, Marxists and the English language media, the Catholic Diocese couldn't expand beyond a certain limit. As a result, it started indulging in 'inculturation' methods (saffron dressing, paadayaatra, calling 'Santhome Mary' as 'Thirumayilai Annai', giving sugar-rice as prashaad, etc) to confuse and win over the gullible masses.

At this juncture, fell on its head like a 'bolt from the blue', the categorical statement from Pope Benedict that the so-called St.Thomas never ever visited India! This resounding statement from the Papacy, which shocked the Catholic community, had shaken the very foundation of Christianity in South India! As the Papacy didn't bother to listen to the Indian Catholic community and their protests, the Madras and Cochin Bishops met in Cochin, Kerala during the second week of June 2008, to find out ways and means of reestablishing the history of the so-called St. Thomas.

As a step in that direction, the Archdiocese of Santhome, Madras, decided to produce a feature film on the so-called St.Thomas the Apostle of India, at a cost of Rs.50 Crore in the banner of 'St.Thomas Apostle of India Trust', which has Archbishop A.M.Chinappa, Deputy Archbishop Lawrence Pius, Treasurer of the Diocese Mr.Ernest Paul and Script Writer Dr.Paulraj Lourdusamy as office bearers. The movie will be presenting the life and times of the so-called St.Thomas in South India in general and Madras in particular. The film will have certain supposedly important events like the alleged meeting between Thomas and Tamil Sage Thiruvalluvar, the establishment of Santhome Cathedral and the alleged killing of Thomas by a Hindu Brahmin Priest.

The story of Thirukkural containing Biblical verses was first concocted by G.U.Pope, a Christian Missionary, who learnt Tamil and translated the Tamil Literary works such as Thiruvachagam, Naaladiyaar and Thirukkural in English. The missionaries like G.U.Pope, Joseph Besky (who took a Tamil name 'Veeramaa Munivar') and Caldwell have a modus operandi of learning the native language with a motive of distorting history to suit their missionary agendas. The Dravidian racist political party, which always thrived on the bogus Aryan Invasion theory, took immense satisfaction in glorifying these missionaries by erecting statues for them along the Marina Beach when it ruled Tamil Nadu in the late sixties and early seventies, thereby exhibiting its unholy connection with Christian missionaries. No wonder, the Honourable Chief Minister Karunanithi inaugurated this 50 crore movie-magnum on the so-called St.Thomas!

G.U.Pope lived up to the true tradition of Christian missionaries, by telling that Thiruvalluvar lived in Madras between 800 and 1000 years after the birth of Christ! The Tamils never bought this story and laughed at it. As per the available records it is believed that Thiruvalluvar could have lived during the second century based on the evidence that 'Thirukkural' was included in the group called Pathinen Keezh Kanakku (Eighteen literary works) during the 'Kadai Sangam' (Last Sangam) days. Those days, there was a literary-grammatical procedure by which the author would always make it a point to convey to the readers the identification of his Teacher (Guru) and Patron apart from his own personal details such as name, native place, worshipping deity, etc. But Thirukkural sans such details, and hence, the connection between Thiruvalluvar and Thomas is a mere figment of imagination.

Whereas, a look at many other literary works written after the second century, say for example Kamba Ramayanam, or Periya Puraanam, could lead to the mentioning of Thirukkural or its philosophy in them and none of them would have any information about a religion called Christianity. The glorious rule of Raja Raja Chola was during the 10 century and there was no trace of Christianity then! Also the Santhome Cathedral had the inscriptions of Rajendra Chola of the eleventh century on its corridor walls! Then what meeting is this Archdiocese talking about between Thiruvalluvar and the so-called St.Thomas?

Even the Chief Minister during his speech at the inauguration function, has not mentioned anything about the alleged meeting between Thomas and Thiruvalluvar. It is a well-known fact that, Karunanidhi, himself being a Tamil Scholar and well versed with Tamil literary works, had written his masterpiece 'Kuraloviyam' on Thirukkural. As he had not talked anything about the connection between the Bible and Thirukkural or Thomas and Thiruvalluvar at the inaugural function of the movie, it becomes obvious that the 'Thomas story' is an absolute falsehood! But, he has waxed eloquent on the supposed killing of the so-called St.Thomas at the hands of a Hindu Brahmin Priest and went on to say that the particular scene alone is enough for the success of the movie! But For this (Thomas's killing) also, the Church doesn't have even an iota of evidence.

At this juncture, it can be recalled that the Honourable Chief Minister had recently questioned the truth of Bhagwan Rama, historicity of Ramayana and existence of Rama Sethu, despite the availability of so much of archeological, literary, cultural, numismatic, geographical and historical evidences. But, he has not exhibited the courage to question the historicity of the so-called St.Thomas, despite being aware of the fact that there is absolutely no iota of evidence. The Honourable Chief Minister, who is a well-known expert in Thirukkural, has unfortunately not felt it important to ascertain the truth of the so-called metering between Thomas and Thiruvalluvar, but conveniently left it untouched at the inauguration function. Though the people are aware of the Chief Minister's hostile stand against the majority community, it doesn't augur well for him to openly pander the minority community accepting their devious machinations.

The Archdiocese talks of three vital places in Madras namely Santhome (Mylapore), Little Mount (Saidapet) and Thoms Mount (Brungi Malai). While Santhome Cathedral stands on the ruins of Kapali Temple, Little Mount was also built after demolishing a Temple and the Church on the Big Mount was also built on the ruins of a Temple. The Big Mount was called as 'Brungi Malai' named after 'Brungi Maharishi', who sat in penance there invoking Bhagwan Shiva seeking his Darshan and Blessing. Ultimately Bhagwan Shiva appeared before Brungi Munivar as 'Nandeeshwara' and as clear evidence the 'Avudai Nayagi Sametha Nandeeshwara Temple' stands near the St.Thomas Railway Station, from where one could see the Brungi Malai clearly. This 'Stal puraanaa' can be found in the form of inscriptions on the walls of the Nandeeshwara Temple even today! Even while the Archdiocese has been attempting to establish the fallacy of St.Thomas over the years, it has not exhibited the courage so far to face a public debate despite invitations from learned Tamil Hindu scholars.

The Archdiocese has the freedom of expression and the freedom of religion to propagate its faith, but it cannot be done at the cost of other religious faith. Freedom of expression and freedom of religion cannot be used to distort history, or Christianise the icons of other religions, with a motive of belittling the other faith, which is native in all respects and which has well-established glorious religious tradition and cultural heritage spanning thousands of years even before the birth of Christianity. Thrusting of falsehood on the gullible masses cannot be allowed. It is not too difficult to understand the aims and objectives of the Madras Archdiocese behind this movie project. So, it would be better for them to understand the sensitivity attached with this project, as they have a social responsibility. The government must also ensure that history is not distorted and the people are not repeatedly fed with fabrications and fallacies.

It would be appropriate to conclude with the sensible and courageous words of Dr. Subramaniam Swamy, 'The Church will have to go, and the Kapaleeshwara Temple re-built on that site. Hindus will do it with the help of sane and civilised Christians if possible, without them if necessary, and despite them if forced. When 83 percent Hindus unite, let those who are seeking to debase Hindu icons by bogus history realise that a religiousTsunami will wash them away'.

Politics has always been interwoven with religion and history in our nation of diversity and in such a scenario, it would be better to leave this project untouched, for the sake of Unity!

 

http://pseudosecularism.blogspot.com/2008/10/baptising-thiruvalluvar-to-besiege.html

Defalsify India’s history as a first step in national renaissance – Dr. Subramanian Swamy

Dr. 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


US Congress should withdraw 2008 Kluge Prize award to Romila Thapar.

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
By Dr Gautam Sen (Organiser, January 18, 2009)

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 breezily speaks of truth in historical writing, imagining that all her critics are fools who cannot conceivably be aware of a well-worn professional discussion on the contestable nature of historical truth and partisanship in historical scholarship. Some of them are also familiar with the work of historians of greater professional distinction than Romila Thapar and infinitely superior intellectual integrity, who have written rather differently on ancient and medieval India.

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.

Most committed Hindus find Romila Thapar’s interpretation of ancient Indian history grossly disingenuous and thoroughly objectionable. Indeed a large number of Hindus regard her as a deeply mendacious enemy of Hindus. It poses the question whether such a prize would have been awarded to an historian of the Jewish, Christian or Islamic faiths if the pedagogue was practically regarded as an enemy by a significant number of the faithful of these communities. I think not, logical profundity and all artifices about intellectual freedom notwithstanding. The Kluge Prize selection committee might have imposed a simple test on Thapar by requiring her to present examples of two positive statements that she has composed on the Hindu past in her entire career. Instead what the decision of the Kluge committee suggests is racial arrogance, contempt for Hindu sensibilities and the malign influence of a powerful Bostonian non-Hindu Indian, infamous for campaigns belittling Hindu suffering by outright lies.

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. She turns notions of scepticism in judging historical evidence on their head. Her personal authority becomes the only referent for increasingly wild assertions! There is no scholar of ancient Europe or any other part of the world that would dare advance ludicrous claims to expertise without command of the relevant languages and usually over a modest geographical expanse. The likes of Fernand Braudel and Chris Wickham are very rare indeed and Romila Thapar might wish to consult their historical oeuvre in penance for a multitude of sins.

A central purpose of her banal lifetime agenda has been to legitimise the destruction of Somnath by Mahmud of Ghazni. According to Romila Thapar, he was motivated purely by greed, a secular impulse that supposedly erases any iconoclastic religious rationale. One startling claim she also appears to make is familiarity with supposedly extant corroborative Persian and Turkish sources on his lack of religious conviction, presumably the pre-Kemalist script in which even few contemporary Turks claim to read, though it is Sanskrit she really needed to bone up on. Much the same can be said of her sturdy defence of Aurangzeb’s iconoclasm, asserting secular political motives for the destruction of the Kashi Viswanath temple (and countless others) and the erection of a mosque in its place. Her JNU colleagues indulge in even more bizarre fantasies, such as imperial sanction against the temple for the abduction of some local princess though the evidence adduced is miraculously fictitious. This is the stuff of undergraduate student union debates and all that she and her execrable Stalinist JNU colleagues are able to conjure in old age.

There is hysterical denial that any Muslim ruler was ever loyal to his faith and followed the Prophet’s iconoclastic example. By asserting robbery as the principal motive in every significant instance of temples being destroyed they end up in the unenviable position of having to explain why there is so much discussion about division of the spoils of conquest in the numerous wars of jehad waged by the Prophet himself? The delicious paradox of this assertion, which dear Romila has not evidently thought through, is that Islam, if they are correct in their imputation of robbery as the routine motive for its imperial expansion, is merely about theft and the recourse to the Almighty Allah a ruse! She is proposing, in effect, that Muslims going to war everywhere were only out to rob and pillage, not because they were engaged in jehad against infidels. But why this extraordinary insight should have reassured the victims of robbery, murder and mayhem is a matter she obviously cannot comprehend. Quite clearly, common sense is at a premium since it would have dictated that religious motivation and desire for loot have always co-existed in most imperial expansions.

Romila Thapar’s infamous patronage of the discredited Aryan invasion theory always had an Islamist rationale as well. By maintaining, on the basis of grotesque colonial historical misrepresentation, and its subsequent validation by the Nazi ideologue Alfred Rosenberg, that contemporary Hindu upper castes were invaders she sought to grievously injure the legitimacy of India’s entire Hindu past. What she was effectively arguing was that racist invaders had subjugated indigenous Indians in the past and casteist Hinduism was their ideology. By inference, later Islamic invasions were no more remarkable since they were merely successors to a well-established pattern of invasions. Of course, for India’s venal Stalinists Islam represented liberation since it was monotheistic and preached equality. That it guaranteed sexual slavery for women and death (enslavement after every conquest) to those who resisted conversion to Islam was a quirk in the prescription of Islamic equality that escaped tortured Stalinist logic. Even now contemporary India heaves with the distorted logic of this colonial historical intervention, which is being used to justify social pogroms against alleged upper caste oppressors no matter how deprived many of them may be and by communities that wield significant economic and political power in India now. Truly, such deep-rooted malice underpinned the eventual extermination of European Jewry. The fact that the Aryan invasion theory lies in tatters has only prompted the devious reworking of its original formulation by her. The blatant Islamist and Christist demonization of alleged upper caste oppression has now been artfully re-phrased by transmuting invasion into immigration, a parallel to the historic libel against Jews of poisoning wells, to renew the charge of illegitimacy against upper caste villains.

She breezily speaks of truth in historical writing, imagining that all her critics are fools who cannot conceivably be aware of a well-worn professional discussion on the contestable nature of historical truth and partisanship in historical scholarship. Some of them are also familiar with the work of historians of greater professional distinction than Romila Thapar and infinitely superior intellectual integrity, who have written rather differently on ancient and medieval India. In her case, what stands out resoundingly, again and again, is a determination to vindicate every aspect of Muslim rule over Hindus and celebrate their most egregious crimes or ignore them altogether with breathtaking impudence? In this context, it is not ancient India in which she proclaims expertise, but any period requiring the usual Stalinist hatchet job of dis-information. And it is for this highly politicised defence of Islamic rule over India that a Christian America, steadfast friend of Islamic jehad against it, is rewarding a sworn enemy of the Hindu people. Mahmud, Timur, Aurangzeb, Nadir Shah and the Abdali killers ought to feel refreshed with the taste of the blood of hundreds of thousands of Hindu men, women and children even as they find an honourable place at Allah’s table.

Such is the audacity of Thapar and these second-rate Stalinists that profound ontological and epistemological differences with historians of the stature of R. C. Majumdar and Sir Jadunath Sarkar are evaded by merely accusing them of communal Hindu methodology. The eight volume History of India, as told by its own historians, compiled by Eliot and Dowson, is also damned by imputing partisan motives though their contents are not uniformly damaging to Islam, yet highlight enough evidence of despoliation to prompt their blanket denouncement by India’s fifth column. And she herself also makes a disgracefully cavalier accusation against the distinguished K. M. Munshi of an attempt to revive the Hindu Aryan (sic!) past for his endeavours to restore Somnath. Yet, these fifth columnists never detect such base motives in the reams of diabolical contemporary Islamic and Christian hate literature used incessantly to insult Hindu sensibilities in their own homeland. This is a tradition that dismisses those who disagree with them as communal, the pronouncement of an auto da Fe to paralyse them.

Her alleged expertise on ancient India is a badge deployed for typically cynical Leftist aims of aggrandisement, marked by opportunistic alliances and complicity in genocide that has usually ended in historical oblivion. But much blood will first be spilt and on a scale that would make any bloodletting specifically sponsored by Hindus, with all the enormous caveats that signification ought to imply, a few mere commas compared to the respective histories of genocide wilfully engaged in by Islam and Christianity. What most Indian historians seem to lack, in addition to appropriate training in methodology and relevant linguistic skills, is any notion of comparative history. It seems that Hindu India’s encounter with Islam is outside history and all the evidences, written and archaeological, subject to the imprimatur of a bunch of malicious Stalinists before they can be regarded as valid. Comparable evidence of examples of the expansion of Islam elsewhere has not suffered the same dismal fate. But the two cannot be compared since they reveal a pattern that will refute all the deceitful contortions that Indian history has suffered for too long at the hands of Stalinists, deriving additional succour, for their own mundane political reasons, from India’s foreign enemies. Tellingly, the predators and assassins that Romila Thapar has laboured to vindicate throughout a dismal career are also the heroes of Pakistan for being iconoclasts that kept Hindus in their place.

Romila Thapar belongs to the cynical tribe of Indian Stalinists who thrive by self-righteousness, which in the Indian context bears a familial resemblance to the racial supremacy that Europeans once openly declared and now quietly assert. Basically, it is divide-and-rule by mobilising every division and fissure amongst the non-whites to their advantage and the use of sophisticated media brainwashing techniques that simultaneously affirm equality while ensuring racial hierarchy. The noble campaign against tradition and ignorance melds effortlessly with the depravity of the masters of the universe, eagerly delivering incendiary tonnage on Afghan wedding parties and Iraqi schoolchildren. But the clamorous natives are forever at the door, resentful, gross and uninitiated in the mores of cosmopolitan sophistication. And their imperfect command of the English language is a weapon used against them, to criminalise their ignorance and question their humanity.

But nothing can be allowed to stand in the way of progress, the logical summit of which the great theorists Mark Horkheimer and Theodor W. Adorno noted was ascended in the gas chambers of the same civilisation that produced Goethe and Beethoven.

The sordid outcome of the Kluge prize for Romila Thapar is an attempted validation of the intellectual genocide against Hinduism. And the Indian Stalinist anti-colonial rant evaporates the moment their aircraft approaches the American shoreline. As a fully paid up member of India’s deracinated upper crust, Romila Thapar loftily declined the native Padma Bhusan, but a million dollar prize, effectively the same kind of state award she found unpalatable, from the racist sponsors of mass murder is apparently another matter. The real high-minded tradition examining the Hindu past represented by the noble efforts of many like Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan were not on the Kluge radar. It will satisfy the evangelical constituency that wishes to extirpate Hinduism and the Islamic jehadists who assert historical legitimacy for their claims to imperial dominion over India and regularly pursue it by murderous ventures that emulate Nazi pogroms against Jews and Slavs. It is Romila Thapar who is their intellectual mentor and Kluge has emphatically joined the same genocide chorus. The con-joining of the name of historian Peter Brown for the Kluge prize on the same occasion is a cause for mourning since this great scholar has done so much to advance our understanding of the ancient world, with insight that testifies to profound scholarship and elegance that is enviable.

(The writer taught for more than two decades at the London School of Economics and now writes on international political economy.)

 

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

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.

 

Dear    Dr.    Gifford,

 

I    am    writing    this    open    letter    to    protest    the    appointment    of    Dr.    Romila    Thapar    to    the    Kluge    Chair    at    the    Library    of    Congress    At    the    very    outset,    I    want    to    emphasize    two    things   

                                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.    Thapars    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.    THAPARs    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.    Thapars    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.    Thapars    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    Indias    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    1970s.    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    COMMUNITY

Prof.    Thapars    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.    Thapars    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.    Thapars    appointment    to    the    Kluge    Chair    will    precisely    promote    such    perceptions,    at    least    in    a    large    section    of    the    Indian    American    community.    Given    Prof.    Thapars    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.    Thapars    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.    Thapars    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    Thapars    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.    Thapars    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    Davids    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.    Nandis    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    Ranades    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 poses

This is in the context of the six-part series on Story of India being aired on PBS. http://www.pbs.org/thestoryofindia/

1. Genetic-Palaeolithic studies point to autochthonous evolution of Hindu civilization since 150k years ago which genetically marks the first exit of mankind out of Africa along the Indian Ocean rim, coastline.

See http://sites.google.com/site/kalyan97/palaeolithic which includes: Peopling of India: genetic markers speak out! By Gyaneshwer Chaubey (2008)

It is clear from palaeolithic studies, that the supereruption of Mt. Toba circa 74,000 BCE did NOT impact the continuity of settlements in Bharatam.

The critical feature of the Sarasvati civilization is that it was a maritime-riverine civilization in ancient times, an undeterminate date -- earlier than 4500 years Before Present -- but evidenced by references to maritime activities in the Rigveda.

2. The aryan invasion/migration myth

This aryan invasion/migration is a myth. River Sarasvati is NOT a myth but a proven ground-truth, bhumi satyam. She is as real as Ganga and Yamuna which join with her to form the Triveni Sangamam. When Ganga and Yamuna are real, why should Sarasvati alone be a myth?

That this aryan invation/migration/trickle-in myth is no longer a tenable hypothesis has been proved by the findings related to Vedic River Sarasvati.  In Devi suktam, she is called Vagambhrini;  in an aatmastuti she claims (both as devataa and as rishikaa) that she is: aham rashtri samgamani (that is, I am the rashtra which is the unity of unmanifest and manifest earth and people). The presence of about 2,000 archaeological settlements on the banks of this River and in the River basin calls for a reference to the autochthonous evolution of civilization circa 5th millennium BCE as Sarasvati civilization. See the proceedings/ppt presentations of the Conference held in India International Centre, New Delhi, between Oct. 24 to 26, 2008. http://sites.google.com/site/kalyan97/Conf-Presentations Prof. KS Valdiya has established conclusively the ancient courses of the Vedic River and also explained the reasons for the desiccation of this Himalayan glacial river due to river migrations consequent upon plate tectonics (an ongoing phenomenon which also explains the geodynamic phenomenon of growing Himalayas as the Eurasian plate gets uplifted). In a presentation, Prof. BB Lall also explains the continuity of the civilization in Bharatam with evidences of spectacular cultural markers). The most dramatic evidence is the presence of Shivalinga found in situ in worshipful state in Harappa and the burial of a woman in Nausharo (500 kms. north of Karachi) with shankha (turbinella pyrum) bangles dated to ca. 6500 BCE. A startling date which jibes with the Rigveda and Atharvaveda references to shankha krshaana (shankha bowman) who cuts to shankha to make bangles. The 15 ebooks on Sarasvati civilization kept at the web portal http://sites.google.com/site/kalyan97 also point to the essential technological continuum of copper furnaces into iron furnaces on Ganga basin circa 18th century BCE.

3. The formation and evolution of Bharatiya languages is as yet an untold story. There is ample evidence to start questioning the received wisdom about urheimat -- homeland -- of Proto-Indo-European. An alternative o the Proto-IE language hypothesis is the Proto-Vedic Continuity Hypothesis. http://www.swaveda.com/articles.php?action=show&id=124 See also notes on Linguistic area at http://sites.google.com/site/kalyan97/sarasvati The Language X postulated to explain the origin of many words which have no traces in Proto-IE and a significant percentage of agriculture-related words which are part of the Linguistic Area of Bharatam point to the possibility of explaining the so-called Indus Script using glosses of this linguistic area. (A Linguistic area is where many dialects interact and absorb language features and make such features their own). Shatapatha Brahmana, Manu Samhita, Vatsyayana and Mahabharata refer to mleccha as a language (mleccha vaacas versus arya vaacas). Vatsyayana explains it further in the context of cryptography or writing system called mlecchita vikalpa (alternative expression made by mleccha). This mleccha used by Khanaka (miner) and by Yudhishthira-Vidura in the great epic may explain Language X and also the fact that the Austro-asiatic language presence is clear and evident in the days of the Sarasvati civilization in the River Basin area and beyond into western Asia. See http://sites.google.com/site/kalyan97/a-new-decipherment-paradigm

4. The myth of IE language as the source of the so-called Indo-Aryan languages thus gets exploded and it is possible to posit an alternative Proto-Vedic Continuum of Bharatiya language formation and semantic expansion as evidenced in the over 8000 semantic clusters of the Indian Lexicon of 25+ ancient languages of Bharatam. http://www.scribd.com/doc/2232617/lexicon

5. This necessitates questioning the bases of presentations made on popular series such as the 2009 BBC/PBS show of Michael Woods which are the same as those being contested in the California textbooks case (also called the Harvard Donkey Trial).http://www.ivarta.com/columns/OL_051219.htm

6. This also necessitates questioning and mounting a campaign to withdraw the bogus award of Kluge Prize awarded to Romila Thapar another indologist of the Harvard Donkey Trial genre. http://sites.google.com/site/itihasabharati/distortions A campaign should be mounted to make the US Congress and Library of Congress disown the erroneous award to someone celebrating genocides of the barbaric mediaeval period of Bharatiya Itihaasa, as eloquently brought out by Prof. Gautam Sen. More evidence on Harvard Donkey Trial at http://www.scribd.com/doc/2262092/domesticationofdonkey1

7. The colonial mind-set is also fully informed by christist theology and the imperative of converting the heathens. The so-called discoverer of Sanskrit as a language of wonderful structure more perfect than Greek, Sir William Jones was himself an impostor. This is evident from the marble panel mounted in his honour in Oxford chapel. He is shown wearing a Popal skull-cap -- reminding viewers of his role in proselytization and evangelization. http://tinyurl.com/7jwtj6

Yes, it is time to unravel the myths created by indologists about the roots of Hindu civilization using the tools of geodynamics, genetics and metallurgical advances in history in the ongoing search of mankind for new minerals, metals and alloys and to enthrone general semantics as the foundation for language studies based on an evaluation of the underlying cultural foundations which can explain language formation, evolution and changes. Starting hypothesis: Bharatam as a Linguistic area circa 5th millennium BCE.

Dhanyavaadah.

Kalyanaraman

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:

  • Aryan Invasion Theory
  • Origin of Sanskrit
  • African Migration based on DNA theory

Thank you,

 

Vande Mataram

 

Vijay Shertukde

vshertu@aol.com

 

 

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,

vshertu@aol.com


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.

 

Published: January 9,2009

 

 

 

 

 

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
New Delhi | Friday, Jan 9 2009 IST
 
Indians were cautioned today against viewing history through the eyes of the West which ''neglect our'' contributions and gloss over such horrors as famines the British inflicted on India.
 
The warning came at an International Conference on Indian History, Civilisation and Geopolitics 2009 addressed by such historians as Prof B B Lal, Prof Shivaji Singh and Dr Sharad Hebalkar.
 
''Books on Indian history sold abroad deliberately neglect our ancient history so as to minimise and sideline its contributions,'' a United States-based engineer-turned-Indian history buff told delegates.
 
''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,'' Dr Kosla Vepa said.
 
Dr Vepa is director of a US-based Indic Studies Foundation, sponsoring the three-day conference in association with Akhila Bharatiya Itihasa Sankalana Yojana.
 
Dr Vepa suggested ''changing the content of the text-books worldwide and especially in the West to correct these distortions.'' A retired Director General of the Archaeological Survey of India, Dr Lal regretted school kids being fed wrong notions.
 
''There is absolutely no proof,'' Dr Lal said, ''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,'' he said.
Warning that new distortions in Indian history are being created even today, Dr Lal said Indian historians must set the record straight through cogent evidence and sustainable arguments.
 
Prof Singh, former Head of Gorakhpur University's Ancient History Department, rejected the frequent 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 Indian sense of history was unique, intended to help man's self-fulfillment and self-realisation, not furtherance of vague objectives.
 
''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 said.

-- (UNI) http://news.webindia123.com/news/Articles/India/20090109/1148707.html

 

Comments