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 20th
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//
