Title: 'Red History'
withering away
Author: Meenakshi Jain
Publication: The Weekend
Observer
Date: February 26, 2000
Indian Marxists clearly
view the domain of history writing as their special turf, on which they
will permit no poaching. Hence, the very suggestion that their work, too,
must submit to scrutiny, has raised their hackles, and prompted the clarion
call for 'a mass movement of intellectuals' against the Indian Council
of Historical Research's decision to submit two volumes of the 'Towards
Freedom' project to a review committee.
In the contemporary Indian
context, all talk of historical objectivity is simply hogwash. Sitting
in their fortified campuses; the big guns of academia have decreed that
red is the only shade in which. they will permit Indian history to be dyed.
So though the interpolations
and machinations in their reconstruction of historical reality have increasingly
been exposed, Marxists remain unfazed and continue to occupy the high moral
and intellectual ground.
Thus, K N Panikker, one
of the aggrieved historians, betrayed no trace of self-consciousness where
he alleged that the ICHR's move was "part of the plan to spread a distorted
and fictitious history of the national movement". The irony of his statement
in the context of proven Leftist subterfuge in history writing was obviously
lost on him.
Serious charges of document
tampering by Leftist scholars have come to the fore in the current controversy,
and cannot be brushed aside by name-calling. Dr. P N Chopra, who edited
the first volume of the Towards Freedom project, has gone on record to
say that he was pressurised by the then ICHR chairman and Marxist veteran,
Irfan Habib, to incorporate 'certain Communist documents' in his volume,
and summarily dismissed on his refusal to do so (The Pioneer, 18 February).
Nor is this all. Those
now crying hoarse over the recalling of the Panikker-Sarkar volumes from
the press prior to printing would know that Chopra's volume was recalled
from the market after its publication, and is currently gathering dust
on ICHR shelves!
Leftist scholars would
also know that the controversial documents rejected by Chopra were subsequently
included in the volume brought out by another left-leaning historian. These
allegedly pertain to trade union movements and peasant revolts. It would
seem that an entire Left industry is working overtime to create a larger
than life role for these bodies to the detriment of other key players in
the freedom struggle.
Marxist claims to historical
objectivity are further undermined by B R Grover's assertion that a previous
volume covering 1943 44 (published in 1997) invited adverse comments on
several major counts. While it reduced Mahatma Gandhi to a footnote, the
Communist Party "which played a traitorous role in the freedom struggle
had been highlighted out of proportion". Further, fifty per cent of the
documents had little bearing on the independence movement. Most significant,
however, was the fact that the 3-part volume containing 3500 pages and
2000 documents did not contain an index, making verification and validation
of data well nigh impossible.
Dr. S K Gupta, Vice Chancellor,
Himachal Pradesh University, adds that the documents in the said volume,
instead of being listed chronologically as in the 'Transfer of Power' series,
were arranged thematically, which Implicitly involved a subjective approach
and framework. The volume also ignored the patriotic role of the Congress
Socialist Party and the Forward Bloc in 1943-44 when the. British unleashed
a wave of repression abetted by the CPI. Instead, the volume gave prominence
to Communist documents denigrating the two organisations as 'fifth column'
and suppressed documents highlighting the treasonous role of the CPI.
Gupta specifically cites
Document No 56 of Chapter V of the volume, in which the CPI wanted to portray
the CSP, FB and RSP as the 'fifth column'. The paragraphs of this document
were not numbered and the reader was given the impression that the section
captioned 'Relations with the Fifth Column' was the first para of the document,
whereas it was actually the second. Out of the total of fourteen paras,
only four were included, presumably because the rest did not fit the Leftist
narrative (The Sunday Tribune 20 February).
Leftists have failed
to respond to these charges, preferring to go on the rampage at the temerity
of the opposition to their account of history. Panikker has chosen instead
to highlight unsubstantiated instances of 'rightist manipulation', whatever
that might mean. He has alleged that "they want to project RSS leaders
as great freedom fighters whereas the fact is that they were not even near
the struggle". (The Pioneer 18 February).
The current controversy,
however, pertains to the venerable lineage being created for the Left as
vanguard of the freedom movement. When journalist Arun Shourie first revealed
documentary evidence of their collaborationist role with the colonial power,
he was pilloried by the entire Left establishment. Then too, they could
not controvert his findings.
Panikker has also accused
the present political dispensation of trying to define India as a Hindu
nation which, he says, is contrary to the fact that much brotherhood prevailed
among communities in the pre-independence era (The Pioneer, 18 February).
The connection between the current controversy and the regime's alleged
desire to define India as a Hindu nation is unclear, and hence difficult
to answer.
Equally baffling, though
easy to refute, is the claim of historical brotherhood between communities
in the pre-independence period. Since the reference is presumably to Hindu-Muslim
relations, one can cite any number of non-Marxist tomes to show that harmony
between the two Communities was at a premium during the entire period of
Muslim rule, not to mention in the run up to independence. In the 1920s
itself, there was a sharp increase in the number and intensity of communal
riots. In one incident in 1924, all Hindus were forced to flee the town
of Kohat in the North West Frontier. There were over forty communal riots
in Calcutta alone in 1925. The United Provinces witnessed eighty-eight
riots in the period 1923-27. In Kerala, the warlike Moplahs slaughtered
thousands of Hindus and forcibly converted many more. The orgy of communal
violence gathered greater momentum as Partition drew nearer. And yet in
the name of historical objectivity we are asked to believe that inter-community
relations registered a new high on the Richter scale.
Behind ail this bluster
and bravado, it is clear that the ground is slipping from beneath the feet
of Marxist historians. Recent studies by scholars removed from the hurly-burly
of the Indian academic scene have forcefully refuted the main premises
of Marxist historiography and highlighted the essential unity and integrity
of Indian civilization, centred around Hinduism. It is not possible here
to go into the details of that research, but one example should suffice
to demonstrate how out-of-date Marxist scholarship is.
Buddhism and Jainism
have long been described as heterodox creeds that challenged the Brahmin-dominated
Vedic faith. Non-Marxist scholarship, however, is now questioning the tendency
to "essentialise religious formations like Jainism and Hinduism as cohesive
and bounded religious communities with relatively fixed traditions of doctrine
and practice". Instead, it demonstrates that Jainism, Buddhism and Hinduism
are "Parts of a shared religious culture where divine figures, literary
troupes, and ritual forms could all be reincorporated, reformulated and
resituated for polemical purposes".
It is very likely, as
Paul Dundas has suggested, that if we escape "the constrictions and restraints
of our textual labellings and orderings, we may discover that on closer
examination, categories and reifications such as. Jainism and Hinduism
melt away and in the end we find ourselves confronting a socio-religious
continuum which can only be described as South Asian". Dundas is no saffron
henchman, but a respected academic.
The irony is that as
more discerning historians enter the fray, the Left version of Indian history
may simply wither away, and we may well find ourselves a Hindu nation by
academic consensus.
(Dr. Jain is a Reader,
Delhi University)
