Title: Non-saffron history
unnerves reads
Author: Meenakshi Jain
Publication: The Weekend
Observer
Date: December 4, 1999
Leftist intellectuals
are of late busy defending the Marxist contribution to history writing
in India. Frightened by a perceived threat to their hegemony following
the loss of formidable positions of intellectual power and patronage, they
are gearing up to resist the inevitable challenge to their version of history.
Sneering at 'saffron
historians' whose views have begun to command some attention in intellectual
circles, the Leftists claim that the former will be unable to present a
history that can seriously overturn their account.
Their cockiness is baffling
since 'saffron historians' have no need to engage in such an endeavour
at all. A formidable pre-Marxist history already exists; it has merely
to be restored to its former glory. Marxists claim to have widened the
spectrum of historical research to include economic, social, subaltern
and sundry other perspectives, to create a more complete narrative.
However, archaeologists,
anthropologists, sociologists, linguists, philosophers, and specialists
on comparative religion have put together a far richer rendition of the
Indian reality. What is more, it seriously contests the Marxist version
in several key areas.
The asymmetry between
archaeological findings and Leftist treaties on early Indian history is
now too great to be ignored by serious scholars, though it Must be admitted
that Marxists are taking a valiant last stand; they are fanning out to
various colleges with ever-greater vigour in a bid to impress susceptible
audiences of the strength of their theses.
It would be interesting
to know whether members of the Archaeological Survey are also being courted
in university campuses, which are more or less still Marxist bastions.
However, it is empirical archaeological data, not normative saffronist
fancy, that has disproved an Indo-Aryan or European invasion in the pre-or
proto-historic periods. There is simply nothing to prove that the Vedic-speaking
people were intruders in the Indus-Saraswati region. The 'big bang' theory
of Indian Civilization - the so-called seismic clash between Aryans and
Dravidians - has bitten dust, without RSS historians having to lift a shovel.
Philosophers and experts
on comparative religion have also cast the weight of their scholarship
in favour of an integrated Indian Civilization long before saffron intellectuals
came on the scene. S N Dasgupta's magisterial History of Indian Philosophy
marshalled an amazing body of religious documents to present a powerful
argument for the Vedic basis of Indian Civilization. Sadly, but perhaps
predictably, this authoritative study has been edged out of the recommended
reading, at least in Delhi University.
Even writers of such
eminence as Mircea Eliade, Rene Guenon, Hanrich Zimmer, who elevated Hinduism
to a level unpalatable to Marxists, have suffered eclipse. These scholars
have written forcefully of Hinduism as the oldest of the mystery religions
of the world: A form of Philosophia Perennis, embodying those universal
truths to which no people or age can make exclusive claim. Its doctrines,
they have said, can neither change nor be perfected, only viewed and formulated
afresh, "each successive formulation always remaining completely faithful
to the traditional spirit." It is to Hinduism that these scholars credit
Indian's coherence, even in the absence of outward structure and authority,
again without any prompting from the Parivar and its affiliates.
Then there is Ananda
Coomaraswamy who detected in India "a strong national genius... since the
beginning of her history." He found Indian art and culture "a joint creation
of the Dravidian and Aryan genius." Of Buddhism, he wrote:' "the more profound
our study, the more difficult it becomes to distinguish Buddhism from Brahmanism,
or to say in what respects, if any, Buddhism is really unorthodox. The
outstanding distinction lies in the fact that Buddhist doctrine is propounded
by an apparently historical founder. Beyond this there are only broad distinctions
of emphasis." No right-wing historian could dare put it so boldly in Indian
today.
Unfortunately for Marxists,
sociological and anthropological works on Indian social structures are
also overwhelmingly at variance with their tomes on the subject. In sociological
accounts, the caste system, projected by Marxists as the archetype of oppressive
institutions, appears as not-so-villainous. Non-Marxist accounts bring
out the high degree of fluidity in the caste system, with upward mobility
the greatest pursuit.
It is sociological and
anthropological accounts that have fully alerted us to the irrelevance
of varna hierarchy in day-to-day life, where power was a crucial determinant
and was exercise more often than not by dominant castes belonging to the
fourth varna. At the local level at least, the varna order was turned on
its head with agricultural castes serving as benefactors and role models
for all in their vicinity.
Sociologists and anthropologists
like, M N Srinivas, C J Fuller, Jonathan Parry and Marcel Mauss have unraveled
(without help from rightist quarters) the ritually limited role of Brahmins,
their complete dependence on their lower caste patrons, and the contempt
and ridicule they generally evoked in tile countryside. In Marxist historiography,
in sharp contrast, the Brahmin has been consistently equated with Shylock.
Sociological accounts
of the Indian village community also contradict Marxist pontifications
on the subject. The former have laid far greater stress on 'inter-caste
complementarily,' the sense of community that was reiterated in joint celebration
of festivities, rituals, worship, and in combined efforts to raise the
crop and defend life and property from freebooters and natural calamities.
Institutions of caste come across as vibrant and supple in sociological
and anthropological writings, as opposed to their oppressive and status
quoist depiction in Leftist literature. Here too, it may be noted, saffron
writers have played a negligible role.
On Islam, too, there
is little need for a saffron academic effort. Enough work has been done
by such renowned scholars as Bernard Lewis and Patricia Crone for us to
fully appreciate the significance of the Islamic revolution in the world
context. Crone has adequately explained the centrality of conquest in 'the
Muslim scheme of things. Mohammed's God" she writes, endorsed a policy
of conquest, instructing his believers to fight against unbelievers wherever
they might be found. In short, Mohammed had to conquer, his followers liked
to conquer, and his doily told him to conquer; do we need any more?'
Bernard Lewis, in turn,
has dwelt at length on the "radical change" and "discontinuity" that Islam
brought wherever it went in the Middle East. The pre-Islamic states, scripts
and languages were wiped out.
There was a violent break
"in the self-image and corporate sense of identity, and the collective
memory of the Islamic Peoples in the Middle East" We should not expect
that things could have been differently intended for India.
On Indian specifically,
we have works such as those of the late Prof. Aziz Ahmad, whose Studies
in Islamic Culture in the Indian Environment provides a devastating account
of the magnitude of the rift between the two religious in the subcontinent
and speaks of the inevitability of Partition.
Prof. Ahmad's works have
been supplemented by those of a number of American academics whose researches
have led them to similar conclusions.
In the light of such
a formidable intellectual corpus just waiting to be rehabilitated, Marxist
intellectuals should refrain from taunting saffronists to pick up the gauntlet.
Their time would be better spent scrambling for cover. The bubble is about
to burst.
(The author is a Reader
at Delhi university.)
