archive: Marxists played a bad politics
Marxists played a bad politics
Shankar Sharan
Organiser
April 18, 1999
Title: Marxists played a bad politics
Author: Shankar Sharan
Publication: Organiser
Date: April 18, 1999
In 1975 Smt Indira Gandhi put a Time Capsule under the earth. At the
time people wondered about its content. The next Government dig it up
to set the curiosity at rest. Inside them was a funny history of modem
India, which did not mention even Mahatma Gandhi. Just Nehru, Nehru;
Indira, Indira was all in the thousand words history written for a far
away posterity. Further investigation revaled this unique history was
written under the guidance of a renowned Marxist historian Dr S.
Gopal.
It was in no way an isolated incident of Marxist enterprise in India.
Recently an investigative and analytical book, written by the senior
journalist Arun Shourie, throws abundant light on the Marxist
historians in India and the harmful consequences of their work.
Indeed, many troubling questions arise by reading the book entitled,
"Eminent Historians : Their technology, their line, their fraud".
It is irrefutable that Marxist writers have nowhere been impartial.
Whenever possible, they dictate their own facts if the actual facts
are in contrast to the prevalent Communist line. The books of the
erstwhile Soviet Union are a repulsive example of this attitude.
Similar things took place in West Bengal where the Marxists rule.
There they ordered to distort history according to their party line,
which consisted of defaming Hindu era of Indian history; projecting
Muslim era as an admirable period of 'harmony and composite culture';
and glorifying the Communist regimes in present.
By a formal State Circular marked Syl/89/1, dated April 28, 1989, the
Marxist Government of West Bengal dictated the Headmasters of the
secondary schools, that henceforth "Muslim rule should never attract
any criticism. Destruction of temples by Muslim rulers and invaders
should not be mentioned". (p. 63 ff). They thoroughly scrutinised the
history books and quoting the relevant texts of each history book to
be expunged they supplied the exact substitutes to be placed!
That was loathsome enough. But not all. Last year when the Central
Government appointed some historians in the Indian Council of
Historical Research (ICHR), Marxist historians cried foul saying the
appointed scholars have a political leaning and,. therefore, unfit for
the job. It was a truly strange argument, to say least. Because when
in command of the ICHR, they themselves were deeply involved in
politics. Marxist historians were long active with the Communist
parties. Recently they were also guiding the Babri Masjid Action
Committee, officially represented it at the meeting convened by
Chandrashekhar Government. Even in courts many of them (R.S. Sharma,
Romila Thapar, R.L. Shukla, Satish Chandra, Suvira Jaiswal, D.N. Jha,
K.M. Shrimali, Sumit Sarkar, Gyanendra Pandey et at.) appeared as
witnesses of the Sunni Waqf Board. (pp. 8-9)
In their academic projects they openly propagated Communist ideas
often disregarding the facts. In translation project, for instance,
writings of Communist leaders like R. Palmedutt and EMS Namboodiripad
were translated into Indian languages, while the works of Lokmanya
Tilak, Sir Jadunath Sarkar and R.C. Majumdar were declared "not
suitable". Instead, the Left historians selected their own valuable
books for translation.
Left dominance in academia began with the Congress-Communist alliance
at the Centre by which the Marxists came to enjoy a virtual monopoly
over academic institutions. Because the Congressmen were interested
not in academics but directly in the State spoils. Thus the Leftists
had a full sway in academics. They dutifully produced numerous titles
on Pt. Nehru while such greats as Shri Aurobindo, Tilak, Vivekananda
Rajgopalachari, Patel, Rajendra Prasad and even Mahatma Gandhi
vanished form the research-agenda. The prize: now the red professors
could write their conjured up versions of ancient, medieval and modem
India, and praise Communism in their books.
That even in 1996. they could glorify Communist systems in the text
books of National Council for Educational Research and Training
(NCERT) when the Soviet empire was long collapsed, shows their
confidence irrespective of what stuff they write. It was not an old
repetition, the professor does mention the 'set back' of Socialism but
tries hard to put the bitter truth in a favourable light, counselling
the readers to remain attached to the 'Socialist form of state' (pp.
80, 86)
Most of the Marxists distorted and helped propagate a false picture of
society. They concealed in their books that the Communist states had
no freedom of speech, no human rights, no rule of law etc. They
blacked out facts about the Communist past here and abroad. But they
did the worst about Indian history. In all, their general line of
academic propaganda has been : There is no such thing such as
Hinduism, it is Brahmanism; Brahmanism equals intolerance and
persecution of Buddhists, Jains and of course the Shudras; Islam
equals peace, equality, brotherhood, the ascent towards monotheism;
the Left means equality, freedom and. everything nice; Revolution
means the rule of Workers and Peasants! (p- 87, ff)
To establish this line they did all they could for the last thirty
years. Shourie discerned their academic technology to get such views
propagated. For example, the Marxists applied a three-layered filter
to sanitise the devastation committed by the Islamic rulers in India
for centuries. First, the devastation is attributed to individuals;
second, among individuals it wore made out to be just a few ones;
third, they committed aggression, destroyed temples, pulverised idols,
converted temples into mosques etc., not because of some religious
beliefs but because they were putting down the opponents as rulers do,
and because they were motivated by greed for the riches of temples. In
any case, the Marxist historians assure the readers, Islam had nothing
to do with all that. (pp. 90-96). They do so despite the vast
evidences available to the contrary which: Mention sixty-one kings,
sixty-three military commanders and fourteen Sufis who destroyed Hindu
temples in one hundred and fifty-four localities, big and small spread
from Khurasan in the West to Tripura in the East, and from Transoxiana
in the North to Tamil Nadu in the South, over a period of eleven
hundred year.... [the Islamic invaders] also saw to it that a record
was kept of what they prized as a pious performance. The language of
the record speaks for itself. (pp. 116-17)
Thus a worst kind of falsification has been performed-about not only
the nature of Islamic rule bet also the Aryan-Dravidian divide, the
characterisation of ancient India under Hindu rulers such as Maurya
period and the character of the Freedom Struggle. Everywhere the same
trait : Suppresso veri, suggests falsi. This has been a silent scandal
in Indian history-writing for the last thirty years.
When turning to the' writings about ancient India, entirely different
standards are applied. The pre-Islamic India is presented as a land of
discord, in the grip of a social and political system marked by
injustice, inequalities and oppression evidence or no evidence. It is
just the opposite when they deal with the Islamic period which is
presented evidence or no evidence as a period in which 'the, composite
culture' flowered, the, policy of "broad toleration' was the "norm and
departures from it were the rare aberrations. Such empathy is simple
non-existent when they see even the treasures of the ancient period
(pp. 157-77). So, the great works of Kalidasa or Ajanta paintings, or
the tributes paid by foreign visitors such as Fahiyan, were all
nothing but a case of the 'affluence of the upper classes' behind
which must had been 'the normal hardships of the village folks'. As
Shourie aptly remarks, "White-washing the Islamic period is not the
only feature which characterises the works of these historians. There
is in addition a positive hatred for the pre-Islamic period and the
traditions of the country." (P. 188)
Jha, an eminent Marxist historian, freely writes that Lord Krishna had
a "rather questionable personal record". that Lord Shiva is "a
development of phallic cult" and Lord Indra was "rawdy and amoral".
Denigrating Hindu gods and goddesses are a norm in their writings but
when turning to Islamic figures they become all reverence. They never
mention what even the Shia Muslim scholars say about some family
members of the Prophet Muhammad and about three prominent Caliphs put
of the four. In the same fashion to the Marxists the tolerance and
love for peace in emperor Ashoka was a 'posture'. But when it comes to
an Aurangzeb or an Allauddin Khilji the Marxist historians construct
everything on earth to defend and belittle their cruelties upon the
common, especially the Hindu masses.
Why the Marxists under-took such painstaking falsifications? Plain
politics is the true answer. They themselves maintain, assuming to be
the super guardian of society, in a truly Marxist demeanour as if all
others are just kids, that bad facts about the Islamic period must be
swept under the carpet in the interest of national integration.
Because recalling them will offend Muslims and sow rancour in the
minds of the Hindus. For the same reason. Cruelties and discord must
be highlighted about the Hindu period, as that would weaken the
present Hindutva politics.
Yet, it does not worry them superiors that falsifying the Hindu past
embitter different castes of Hindus against each other and embolden
worst casteist politicians. Why, that helps the Communist politics. So
the standards of description must be different for different
periods/facts/parties. They also do not mention nasty episodes about
the Indian Left-such as CPI's supporting the 'right of
self-determination' of the Muslim leaders, and asking for the
Partition in 1947; or calling names to the leaders of the freedom
movement; or betraying the Congress workers to the British police in
1942. For the Communist politics the red historians keep mum about
such black events. That is Marxist history writing.
Therefore, it boils down to a crass political purpose which the
Leftist historians served for the last thirty years. Precisely for
this reason, that is, for the lack of a domestic political purpose
Marxist historians of the Soviet Union had not been discriminating
about the ancient and medieval portrayals of India. They fairly praise
the achievements of the ancient period and duly mention the cruelties
of the Islamic period (pp. 190-96). Their books have none of the scorn
and animosity which one encounters in the Indian Marxists. Because,
they had not a 'hidden agenda' to defeat a political group or secure
Muslim votes in India. hence, no such concoction which Indian Marxists
applied so thoroughly for the last three decades.
[The author has a Ph. D. in Soviet history. He is a former editor of
Tibet Bulletin a monthly magazine from Dharamshala. He has been
writing on Russian and Tibetan affairs in national journals and
newspapers. Also edited some books from the Tibetan Parliamentary and
Policy Research Centre to which he is presently associated as a
researcher.]
Back
Top
|
