Doctored History from Ancient Time till Today - Professor Irfan Habib

 Doctored History from Ancient Time till Today

Professor Irfan Habib

Zoom Meeting @6 p.m. on 30 Jan 2022 Sunday

 

Transcription Of speech

 

1.        Historical tradition in India is very old; from Sanskrit (Harshacharita andRajatarangini) to Persian chronicles and records, books on administration like“Ain-I-Akbari” and then the colonial period. These have been studied largely withsome regard to accuracy and actual facts.

 

2.        We can use these texts forreconstructing Indian history of that time. What is happening now is what hasbeen aptly called as doctored history. That is history that has no basis practicallyin facts.

 

3.        I will therefore begin with the element of race theory which is discredited all overthe world, but now which is the reigning doctrine as far as the official Indianhistoriography is concerned, as shown for instance in the University GrantsCommission’s syllabus for the Bachelor’s course in History.

 

4.        When the RSS was formed, in 1920s, it was formed as a kind of force forcommunal riots. But in 1938, Golwalkar decided to write a book which is regardedby RSS as practically its Bible. In this book it was stated by Golwalkar that he wasdrawing from other Hindutva writers.

 

5.        In it there is a statement of commendationof Adolf Hitler that he had the right idea about race and that is shown by histreatment of Jews. In 1938 England and France were encouraging Hitler to attackRussia and therefore any praise of Hitler was not going to offend the British.

 

6.        ButHitler had his race theory, which is Aryan fixation.Golwalkar himself recognized Aryans as actually the people who are fully Indiansand the Indian nation should belong to them. Golwalkar said that the others couldnot have any rights, and he was of course referring to Muslims, they would not becitizens.

 

7.        Hindus are the patriotic people of India because all their religious placesare in India. This is an oft repeated theme, in NCERT, during the period of Vajpairegime, 1999 to 2004. But the trouble is that Kailash, with which the list begins, isnot in India, it is in China. We are not even claiming it. But if this thesis isaccepted, 99% of the nations of the world would not be nations at all.

 

8.        Religiousplaces of Christians are in Palestine. Those of Catholics are in Rome. If we applythis, there is no other Nation and there is only Hindu nation in India. But this isrepeated all the time as if Hindus are the only people of the country. But then ofcourse we have to go back in history.

 

9.        But other thing that was left behind is the Aryan theory, as far as the linguists areconcerned is the term Arya or Ariya lies in India and Iran, the set of Indo-European languages to which Rigveda and Avestha belong.

 

10.    In the early Sanskrittexts the word Arya means respectable. Applied in the Dharma sastras to the firstthree varnas, Brahman, Kshatriya and Vaishya. Also meaning nobles.

 

11.    Aryavarthcorresponds to India and Iran is plural of Ariya. Even in this respect there isnothing particularly Indian. Iran could have easily claimed as much as we have tobe the original Aryas.

 

12.    But what is the charm in being Aryas? If we look at the writings, text books andUGC syllabus, there is an extreme annoyance at any suggestion that Ayras camefrom outside. They spread out from India.

 

13.    Now for a long time, anthropology has established that all humans have come out of Africa. The archaeological evidence is definite and it now being established by genetic evidence also.

 

14.    But this is totally ignored in our text books. It is said that India has produced the Aryans, which supposedly civilized the whole world. In our heart of hearts, we could deny that we came from Africa. If we see in UGC syllabus there is something about prehistory but nothing about human migration.

 

15.    Linguistics has long established what is called the set of Indo-European languages, rising out of Sanskrit and Iranian and they are farthest practically from proto Indo-European.

 

16.    And then there came the archaeological evidence, the horse evidence. Horses migrated from Kazakhstan and Russian Steppes in southern part of central Asia, to Afghanistan, Iran and India. You can trace it through horse bones and you can trace it through depictions of horses. That was practically established 20 years ago. This has been now reinforced by genetic evidence. This places this migration notably of males, in around between 2000 and 1500 BC. This chronology was established by archaeology.

 

17.    Now what is the harm in Indo-Aryans speaking Indo-Aryan languages of the late stage coming from northern areas of central Asia into India? Of course, nothing.

 

18.    Any part of the world is like any other part. But to the RSS doctors of history this is terrible. They go on talking about the myth of Aryan invasion.

 

19.    Nobody is saying that Aryans were a state which invaded India. We are talking of migrations. We  are talking of tribes whose existence is attested by the hymns of Rig-Veda.

 

20.    There is movement. They are talking about Dravidian influence which comes into Indo-Aryan languages in India but is absent in Iran.

 

21.    Retroflexion (special sound) which comes from proto-Dravidian, would be normal in migrants into India. So, linguistics study is totally affirmed. There is a tirade against Dravidian influences, which is very curious because, Dravidians are Indians and if there is Dravidian influence in Rig-Veda what is the harm? But we can see this absolute racist ideology is at work when we come to Indus civilization.

 

22.    Indus civilization is a cause of much disturbance for the RSS doctors of history. It has written history, and as our prime minister may say, we had plastic surgery because we put elephant head on Lord Ganesha. We did not know writing until Ashokan edicts, if there was an earlier writing it was there in southern India and Sri Lanka. Indus civilization is troublesome as we can’t read and it is certainly not Sanskrit. It has been stressed so many times that the deities are morphic, not anthropomorphic, that is they are based on animals, not human forms. With the Shiv the animals shown are not cattle but they are wild animals. Therefore, it has long been held by archaeologists that Indus civilization is pre-Aryan.

 

23.    There is no possible link between Indus cryptographs and Sanskrit. There are two very important links to proto-Dravidian, the fish sign and the arrow sign.

 

24.    Fish in proto-Dravidian refers to both fish and stars and other meanings also. That will explain the very frequent appearance of fish sign in Indus-Civilization. The position of arrow sign in the texts suits the position worked out for it in Dravidian and proto-Dravidian languages.

 

25.    These two pieces of evidence are very important. Why should we be unhappy if Indus civilization is Dravidian? They are not Iranians or Afghans; they are only Indians. This is a central issue in the doctored history of India. What they do is try to establish fantastic chronology.

 

26.    Wakankar, the late RSS archaeologist, dated Rig-Veda to 8000 BC. Rig-Veda shows agriculture, wheat and barley cultivation, horse domestication. When all these absent in 8000 BC how Rig-Veda could belong to that time?

 

27.    And then B. B Lal who was the director general of archaeological survey, said that Shatapata brahmana was composed in  4500 BC with some fantastic interpretation of astronomical data and therefore Rig-Veda would be 4000 years earlier.

 

28.    When archaeologists of some stature are talking about fantasies, putting post Vedic texts 4000 BC, there was no cotton, horses were not there, wheat and barley were no available. So, there is a reconstruction of history where an attempt is made to put Rig-Veda well before the Indus civilization.

 

29.    No evidence matters as they are declarations. And then of course nomenclature is very important. The archaeological survey from Wheeler’s time began to call the Indus civilization as Harappan on the grounds that Harappan was the first site which was excavated.

 

30.     Now Harappa has gone to Pakistan. Moreover, it is not in the Punjab. The final difficulty is it is not on the Saraswathi. If we could name Indus civilization “Saraswathi civilization”, we can both Aryanise and Hinduise Indus civilization.

 

31.    Saraswathi is the river Goddess in Rig-Veda. Sacred Saraswathi passes through Thaneswar and is a very small stream and runs dry and therefore it is very difficult to argue that Saraswathi is such an important river.

 

32.    The Rigveda hymns of Saraswathi are for river Goddess and that is a small point forgotten. It is not for this river. So, the river goddesses are usually large rivers. And this crucial point is ignored and Indus civilization is called Saraswathi civilization.

 

33.    Clearly this puts history upside down as there is no evidence of horse in Indus civilization and Rig-Veda speaks about a community to which horses are important. This kind of invention will not be acceptable to any serious historian.

 

34.    I would then move to their treatment of caste system. For reasons of their own, they now think Ambedkar is the answer to Gandhiji. But what about their own portrayal of the caste?

 

35.    You will be surprised that in the UGC syllabus, the caste system is regarded as a medieval institution. When Muslims came, Hindus had to divide themselves among castes. It is never mentioned in ancient India.

 

36.    What is mentioned is how the Rajput caste arose in ancient times at 600 AD. Rajputs are a caste and no one can deny that. They are interested in their origin but as far as the caste system is concerned, it is totally avoided. They praise the caste system but they look away from the caste.

 

37.    Actually, the place of origin and spread of the caste system from the middle of the Gangetic plains into the Mauryan empire towards south India is a very interesting theme for historians. How caste system spread.

 

38.    When Alexander came to Indus basin, what is now Pakistan, some Brahmins were there but they didn’t find any caste system. By close study of inscriptions, it can be seen how caste system moved, from Bihar and Eastern UP.

 

39.    It is interesting for historians but is anathema for framers of UGC syllabus and writers of RSS type history. As they couldn’t explain the caste system, they practically omitted it and are hostile to RR Sharma who wrote a book on Shudras, and perhaps a text on Chandalas.

 

40.    It is an interesting topic of spread of agriculture into forest territories gathering tribes into post-Vedic society, and how they were then turned into untouchables.

 

41.    Another interesting topic by the way is religion. Dharma means morality, obescience to Brahmans. But actually, they had no name for religion. When Ashoka in his tolerance edict, talks about religious tolerance uses the word “Pashandas”, word used by Buddhists for Brahmans and Brahmans used for Buddhists. Why for instance Ashoka doesn’t refer to caste system is worth discussing. But in the kind of doctored version, all these become irrelevant. Indeed, Ashoka has become increasingly irrelevant.

 

42.    They formed the Indian history and culture society, from 1970s, they first issued a book “Bias in Indian historiography”, there are new discoveries.

 

43.    V.N Suri says It was not Alexander who defeated Porus, it was the reverse. Another historian said that Rig-Veda was much before 2200 BC because Saraswathi dried up in 2200 BC. Professor Romila Thapar did not accept this.

 

44.    No one knows what is the connection. The kind of ancient Indian history they have written have generated controversies and both Hindu and Muslim communal historians have taken their positions.

 

45.    I will first come to Muslim historians. There is a modern view of Islam that Islam is an egalitarian religion. In a historical view of Islam, the quality is limited. Slavery was permitted, concubinage was permitted, Muslim theologians had slaves, even Sufis had slaves. Therefore, to say that Islam is an egalitarian religion is unacceptable.

 

46.    Muslim historians have written as if Muslims came here to spread the equality. They did not accept the caste system as it difficult in Islam, they used it.

 

47.    I have argued caste system did not benefit Brahmins or any other caste, it benefited government, state or any exploiting class. It created a large landless proletariat / untouchables and it divided the peasants. It enriched ancient Indian rulers, it also benefitted colonial government and they said ‘let us not disturb it’.

 

48.     It was as useful for Sultans as it was for British. And so, to say Islam was an egalitarian religion is totally un-historical. It is a modern idea imposed on it.

 

49.    To call it a foreign rule is also absurd. Because in foreign rule a country is ruled on behalf of another country. Moguls were not foreigners. After Humayun no Moghul emperor was born outside.

 

50.    Modi saying India was under foreign rule for 1200 years is absurd.

 

51.    Whenever we talk of National movement, they start talking about Maha Rana Prathap as though he was a member of BJP. Even though RC Majumdar belongs to Hindu Maha Sabha, people like him do not go as far as RSS people go.

 

52.    For example, it looks very bad to the RSS that there should be any cultural attainments left by Muslim rulers and therefor PN Oak and others in 1960s started writing articles that every Moghul building was actually constructed by Hindus. Whether it is Red fort, Tajmahal, or Man Singh’s place.

 

53.    This led RC Majumdar to break all connections with Organizer, the mouth piece of RSS. It is madness to say that there is no cultural attainment during Moghuls and keep popularizing it.

 

54.    As far as modern Indian History is concerned one can take the Hari Om’s “Modern India” which was published in Bajpai regime under NCERT.

 

55.    What annoys the RSS writers is that credit for renaissance should be given to Ram Mohan Roy, Keshab Chandra Sen, Justice Ranade or Sayyad Ahmad Khan who promoted English education.

 

56.    And in case of Ram Mohan Roy the man was superb, talking in 1839, saying to make permanent settlement with the peasants rather that Zamindars, I just can’t imagine the greatness of the vision of the man. All these are expelled from the book. We do not have his named mentioned as he called himself a mono-theist, equally at home in Persian and Arabic as in English.

 

57.    Bankim Chandra Chatterjee, Swami Vevkananda and Aravindo are the heroes. How are they reformers? Religious figures. What role do they have in National movement?

 

58.    In the end what is the real movement is not the national movement, but the so called cultural nationalism.

 

59.    Moreover, there is a perverse use of Ambedkar. Ambedkar’s contribution is great in so far as he led the movement of the so called outcasts / the depressed classes. To omit Gandhi and Nehru from national movement, so much so that Hari Om does not describe Gandhiji’s assassination as if it was not an event worth recording.

 

60.    Here I would like to say that in doctored history they have totally run-down national figures those who really brought us independence. Gandhiji and Nehru.

 

61.    They never quote Patel’s criticisms of the RSS. Just to pick Patel against Nehru is absurd. The most vicious and mischievous thing they are doing is to totally mis-represent the national movement.

 

62.    And finally, I would like to close with their doctoring of post-independence period. What they are doing is dangerous but this is extremely dangerous.

 

63.    I was 16 when India became independent. I was working on behalf of communist party in the election of 1952 in a place like Agra. That election among other things was fought to reform Hindu law, to give women their rights.

 

64.    The Jan Sangh, the Rama Rajya Parishad and Hindu Maha Sabha formed a front to oppose the reform of the Hindu code. They were badly defeated.

 

65.    A few people were coming to communist party but no one were going to them. People were saying we haven’t got anything but our daughters will get something when the Hindu code comes. That is totally washed off in national memory now and we are into the doctored history that RSS presenting.

 

66.    In 1955 and 56 when the Hindu code came, it totally overthrew the 2000 years of Dharma Shastras. And 50 years later, again under a Congress Government women got totally equal rights. All the minor distinctions that still left were obliterated. But that was under Congress Government.

 

67.    To say that nothing happened after independence as Modi and Shah are uttering is absurd. Then land to the peasant from 1946 to initial Governments, legislature began to pass the law for Zamindari abolishment.

 

68.    And Kashmir was perhaps the most radical that came under Sheik Abdulla whom these RSS people denounce. It  was because of him the peasants in Kashmir got land. In Utter Pradesh and in all provinces and states, peasants got land and Zamindari was abolished. Was it nothing?

 

69.    Then subsequently by land ceiling that depressed got land. Was it nothing?

 

70.    Then in Nehru’s own time, nationalization of insurance companies which gave great relief to ordinary people because when insurance became safe trans-nationalization became safe later.

 

71.    All were important elements in building a public sector and in industrializing India. Even G.D. Birla supported the second five year plan saying that was the only way to industrialize India. Was it nothing?

 

72.    And as has been shown by important economists in the later half of the 20^th century per capita consumption grew and is falling after that. Was it nothing?

 

73.    So the total misrepresentation of post-independence India is a very important part of the doctoring of Indian history. It should be resisted. What happed should be fairly and correctly described. We can’t eliminate great figures from Indian history and supplant them by manufactured figures. And you can’t just ignore the great events, either the civil code or the Zamindari abolishment, or the land ceilings or the land distribution, building of the public sector of India, and  industrialization of India.

 

74.    These are the immense achievements that Shah and Modi are trying to hide. It is the responsibility of historians to convey to Indian people.

//EOM//