|
|
|
Taj Mahal or Tejo-Mahalaya?
by Faisal Kutty
Did you know that Jesus Christ wandered the Himalayas and drew his
inspiration from Hinduism? That a Hindu named Samundragupta built the
Qutb Minar, originally known as Vishnu Sthambha? That the Taj Mahal was
really a Hindu Temple known as Tejo-Mahalaya (Shiva's Palace)? That the
Red Fort in Delhi was a Brahmin palace? Or that the largest Holocaust in
history was perpetrated by Muslims against Hindus in India?
This is news to me. Probably is to most people. No, these are not
extracts from a child's fable nor the impression of a lunatic few. These
"historical truths" have been taught for many years at more than 22,000
Vidya Bharati schools operated by the Hindutva movement composed of the
Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS),
Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) also known as the World Hindu Council, Shiv
Sena (Shiva’s army) and the Bajrang Dal (brigade of the monkey god).
Now thanks to a recent decision, these distortions and falsifications are
not only being disseminated by these right wing Hindu-chauvinists
organizations but by leading educational bodies in the India. Despite
widespread opposition, the National Council of Educational Research and
Training (NCERT), the body responsible for developing school curriculum
in India, decided in November 2002 to rewrite Indian history texts. “It
is not a question of revivalism,” says the center’s director, Physicist
J. S. Rajput, in an interview published by the Washington Post late last
year. “Every country should write its history from its own point of
view. Our history books have been written from a Euro-centric view
because we were a colony for so long. History books should instill a
sense of pride in the young mind and should be rooted in our culture.”
Critics contend that the saffron brigade is using history as a tool for
mythmaking and patriotism. Historical research and teaching has become a
battleground for the identify and future of the nation. The situation is
so grave that the Indian History Congress (IHC), the largest membership-
based association of academic historians, passed a unanimous resolution
setting up a committees to examine NCERT’s new history textbook at its
63rd annual conference in Amritsar. The IHC concluded its conference on
December 30, 2002 on a note of caution stressing that it would remain
vigilant in the face of subversive activities of the communal forces in
its mission to safronise history.
Interestingly, even before the BJP embarked on its project to rewrite
history, there were complaints about bias in history textbooks. In fact,
as early as the Fifties and Sixties there were suggestions that textbooks
in Gujarat and Maharashtra were inaccurate. A Parliamentary committee,
which included Professors K. G. Saiyidin, J. P. Naik and Gopinath Aman
appointed to look into these charges, found that historical events were
“presented in a manner as to arouse and perpetuate prejudice against
certain religious groups.” The committee concluded that “the books were
overweighed with Hindu mythology…Hindu beliefs are presented in a manner
as if they were universally held by all Indians.” As is the case with
most commission reports, the findings were shelved by the authorities.
With the BJP’s victory in four states in 1991, the issue surfaced again
as the newly elected governments started rewriting history to promote the
political ideology of Hindutva. The governments even directed college
libraries to stock titles with clear communal overtones such as Why Hindu
Rashtra? Hum Mandir Wohin Banayenge (We Would Build the Temple There
Only), Shilanyas se Shikhar ki Ore (From Laying the Foundation Stone to
Attaining the Peak), etc. Now, the BJP’s landslide victory in Gujarat
last month even after the massacre of more than a 1,000 Muslims in the
wake of the murder of 59 Hindu pilgrims in Godhra, appears to have
emboldened the saffron brigade even more.
Anyone following the developments in India would have at least heard of
the attempts to rewrite history, but not many are fully aware of the
magnitude and scope of the endeavor. I was rudely awakened to extent of
the project when I stumbled upon an article in Canada’s largest daily,
The Toronto Star, a couple of years ago. Ajit Adhopia, a regular
columnist in the religion section at the time, was promoting the work of
P. N. Oak, the head of the Institute for Rewriting Indian History.
Adhopia was praising the "historical research" of Oak in the Saturday
edition of the paper, which has a circulation of close to one million.
Oak, who has written a number of books, including Some Blunders of Indian
Historical Research and Islamic Havoc in Indian History, is one of the
main proponents of the view that Indian history, as it is taught today,
is developed out of myths planted by British historians and adopted and
promoted by Indians of the Marxist, Secularist and Islamic persuasions.
According to Hindutva theorists the intelligentsia, led by Mohandas
Karamchand Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru, set out to erase from Hindu
memory the history of their persecution and subjugation by Muslims.
Another foreign proponent of Hindutva history, Francois Gautier, claims
that “Hindu-bashing became a popular pastime.” Why would they do this?
Oak, Gautier and those of their ilk have a number of absurd theories. The
Marxists wanted to win favor with Arabs who were fertile ground for
Marxism and Secularists wanted to nurture Hindu-Muslim unity. Muslims,
obviously, had a vested interest in not exposing the fact that they had
nothing to contribute to Indian history or culture or that they destroyed
thousands of temples and perpetrated the largest Holocaust in history.
Disturbingly, historical revisionism has significant support among Non
Resident Indians (NRI) particularly among the wealthy and educated
expatriate communities in the West. According to a Times of India
editorial the movement survives in part thanks to funding and involvement
from NRIs. I was particularly perturbed to read glowing book reviews of
these revisionist history texts by prominent NRI academics at Western
universities. Consider, for instance, what Professor C.J.S. Wallia of
the University of California (Berkley) wrote in his glowing review of
Arun Shourie’s Eminent Historians: Their Technology, Their Line, Their
Fraud, a book critiquing secular historians in India: “During the past
fifty years, `this bunch of Marxist historians have been suppressing
facts, inventing lies, perverting discourse, and derailing public policy’
by seizing control of institutions such as the Indian Council of
Historical Research (ICHR), the National Council of Educational Research
Training (NCERT), large parts of Indian academia, and nearly all of the
English-media newspapers and publishing houses.” Shourie, who holds a
Ph.D. from Syracuse University and served as the editor of the leading
Indian newsmagazine India Today is a prominent scribe of the Hindutva
ideology and has written numerous books attacking secular historians and
Christian missionaries, among others.
Interestingly, such views are not that new. In fact, the first major
endeavor to research Indian history was financed by Nehru (yes, the same
Nehru who the revisionists claim is one of the main propagators of false
history and whitewasher of Muslim faults) in 1951. This project carried
out by a leading Brahmin (an upper caste) historian by the name of R. C.
Majumdar concluded that Muslims had distorted Indian history. It also
found that Muslims had persecuted the masses of non-Muslims during their
reign. A group of upper caste historians set out to make the
"corrections" in 1964. This group produced a number of works that forms
the basis of the recent efforts to rewrite Indian history.
In addition to working at the grass roots by changing school curriculum
the BJP is also working at higher levels. In 1998, India’s Minister for
Human Resources and Development, Murali Manohar Joshi, an ardent Hindutva
supporter, reconstituted the once respected Indian Council of Historical
Research (ICHR] by appointing Hindutva leaning members. In fact, of the
eighteen new members appointed at the time, four where members of the
World Hindu Council's panel that worked to promote the idea of a temple
at the site of the Babri Mosque and five others were closely associated
with the movement. In February 2000, the ICHR stopped the publication of
two volumes of Towards Freedom, a projected multi-volume history research
project. Despite widespread protest and opposition from historians both
within and outside India, the 1940 volume edited by Professor P.N.
Panikkar of Jawaharlal Nehru University and the 1946 volume edited by
Professor Sumit Sarkat of Delhi University were scrapped. The current
head of the ICHR is none other than B. R. Grover, an open supporter of
the extremist VHP with a well-documented history of communalistic
politics, including openly supporting the razing of the 400-year old
Babri Mosque in 1992.
In what has been termed by some observers as the BJP’s “Long March
Through Institutions,” in addition to reconstituting the ICHR and NCERT,
the Hindu- nationalist government has appointed Hindutva supporters to
fill posts within the University Grants Commission, the secondary school
board, the Indian Institute of Advanced Study, the councils of social
sciences and historical research, etc. Fortunately, the membership-based
Indian History Congress has so far been able to fight off the Hindutva
tide. There was a close call back in 1991 when an attempt by 360 Hindutva
historians to take over the group was defeated by the membership.
The Hindutva scholars are joined by foreign scholars such as Koenraad
Elst and Francois Gautier. Elsts's work Negationism in India: Concealing
the Record of Islam and Francois Gautier's Rewriting Indian History is
part of the growing literature attacking Indian history textbooks. Their
version of history portrays Muslims as having contributed nothing to
India other than death, destruction and subjugation. Gautier, for
instance, who is political correspondent for the leading French daily Le
Figaro and the Swiss daily Le Nouveau Quotidien, writes: “Let it be said
right away: the massacres perpetrated by Muslims in India are
unparalleled in history, bigger than the holocaust of the Jews by the
Nazis; or the massacre of Armenians by the Turks; more extensive even
than the slaughter of the South American native populations by the
invading Spanish and Portuguese.”
Nothing appears sacred to these writers. In fact, even the father of
Indian independence, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi is not spared. Hindutva
historians sideline his role and attempt to justify and excuse his
assassination by the Hindu extremist (a fact conspicuously left out from
Hindutva textbooks) Nathuram Godse. Gautier, for instance, claims that
Gandhi bears a great deal of responsibility for whitewashing the alleged
atrocities and selfishness of Muslims and for aiding the British goal of
divide-and-rule. “Gandhi did enormous harm to India,” writes Gautier, “…
for ultimately no one contributed more to the partition of India, by his
obsession to always give in to the Muslims; by his indulgence of [Mohamed
Ali] Jinnah, going as far as proposing to make him the prime minister of
India.”
The fact that the bulk of historical evidence does not back these claims
appears not to stand in the way of these "historians." After all what
does evidence have to do with anything when "facts" can be created and
more rigorous historians can be dismissed as Marxists, secularists,
anti-Hindu or ignorant of the caste system. For instance, in a glowing
review of Elst's work Negationism in India, A. Ghosh writes that the view
advocated by many Indian historians, including the Marxist M. N. Roy,
that Islam was welcomed into India because it brought equality and
respect to lower classes, is based on an incorrect understanding of the
caste system. Not surprisingly, the main proponents of the new history
are upper caste Hindus.
“They want to omit any uncomfortable references to Hindus and merely
glorify Hindu culture in the name of Indian culture,” says Professor
Arjun Dev, a prominent historian. “This version of the past is crucial
to their political and religious ideology of Hindu supremacy. They will
go to any lengths to achieve this, even put forth a fake, invented past.”
And it is not only proponents of the Hindutva movement that have been
guilty of adding and deleting from history. Indeed, as some historians
such as Professor Partha S. Gosh have pointed out even some of India’s
secular “historians have, in their enthusiasm to show that Muslim rulers
were secular-minded, bent over backwards to prove that those rulers were
not communal.” There is no denying that many crimes were perpetrated by
Muslims, some perhaps even in the name of Islam, but to paint Islam and
Muslims with the broad brush used by the saffron brigade is unjustified,
baseless and bigoted. At the same time history should not be
whitewashed for the sake of political correctness. As the Bombay High
Court ruled in a 1967 case (Anant Janardan v. State): “History is not to
serve as a handmaid of a particular school of thought. History must be
impartial and objective. To rewrite history according to the views which
are popular or which are necessary for bolstering up nationalistic egoism
or jingoism, is perversion of history.”
It is worth noting that the IHC also set up a second committee to review
history texts used in states that will not be accepting NCERT texts as a
protest to the BJP led revisions. The IHC pointed out that there were
errors in these texts that needed to be corrected as well. But the
academic body drew attention to a clear distinction: While the NCERT
books contain ideological slants and factual errors; the texts not
influenced by the Hindutva movement did not suffer from these handicaps.
In the latter case, the mistakes were more in the process of translation
or inadvertent errors.
The Hindutva agenda is clearly driven by an agenda other than objective
research. “[Communal history] is not motivated by genuine concerns of the
progress of the discipline though changing interpretations which are
integral to the advance in the discipline,” notes a Times of India
editorial, “it is a religious approach based on falsification and
fabrication of evidence.”
Their ultimate goal is nothing other than to marginalize the contribution
of Indian Muslims. Obviously, a marginalized community is easier to
alienate and cleanse. However, it seems that the ease and speed with
which they have been able to propagate their revisionist theorists
suggests that there is not enough resistance and challenge to the
Hindutva mythmaking.
The international community, particularly the West, justifiably expressed
its shock and opposition to the destruction of the Buddhas of Bamiyan by
the Taliban but our silence on the safronisation of Indian history is
deafening. Clearly, the secular and liberal forces in India cannot fight
this battle alone.
Faisal Kutty is a Toronto-based lawyer and
writer. He is also a columnist for the
Washington Report on
Middle East Affairs. He contributed above article
to Media Monitors Network (MMN).
Source:
by courtesy & © 2003 Faisal Kutty
by the same
author:
|
|
|
