Author: Meenakshi Jain
Publication: Hindustan Times, New
Delhi
Date: May 8, 2001
Non Ideological Newspaper readers
may be forgiven for wondering if there is more than meets the eye in the
high-voltage Leftist hysteria over moves to re-examine the contents of
NCERT history textbooks. Indeed, by raising the bogey of 'saffronisation'
before an academic review could even begin, Leftist historians have shown
nervousness that the biased nature of their work and political agendas
may well be exposed.
That their history is partial and
partisan is evident from even a cursory reading of the Medieval India textbook
for Class VII, a rough summary of collective Leftist scholarship on the
subject. The Leftist claim to historical objectivity suddenly appears vulnerable
as well-known historical facts are found deliberately obliterated or undervalued.
The arbitrary predating of the medieval
period by a couple of centuries, for instance, and the forcible application
of the concept of feudalism to this period, seem inspired by political
considerations. The intention, in both cases, is clearly to draw attention
away from the cataclysmic northern invasions and focus instead on the alleged
political, economic and cultural decay in India on the eve of the Muslim
advent. Credible western scholars have questioned this methodology and
cast serious aspersions on the Indian Marxists' understanding of history
as well as their fidelity to facts.
The problem of historical accuracy
is compounded as we proceed into the medieval era. Key civilisational issues
raised by the Islamic arrival are not even hinted at. While the 'Dark'
and feudal ages in Europe are mentioned, there is deafening silence on
the basic tenets of Islam, the nature of the Muslim polity, the status
it accorded to non-Muslim subjects or its treatment of ancient civilisations
and cultures in conquered Iran, Iraq, Egypt and Syria.
In the entire discussion on the
Delhi Sultanate, the words dhimmi and jaziya are deliberately omitted -
although they are crucial to understanding the dynamics of that epoch.
There is a complete glossing over of the closed nature of the governing
class and the extreme racism of the rulers.
Instead, there are innumerable misleading
references to Hindu participation in the governmental process. If Indian
involvement at the lower levels of administration did not make the colonial
state an Indo-British venture, surely the same logic applies here as well.
Yet the text insists that Hindu princes, landholders and priests of the
time became constituents of the 'new aristocracy' that arose.
The fact, however, is that leaving
aside the ruling houses of Rajputana, Rajput resistance even in the neighbouring
Katihar region remained intense till the last days of the Mughal empire.
The participation of landholders in the ruling class was, likewise, extremely
restricted even under the Mughals. Hence, to assert that involvement of
these groups was the norm in the Sultanate period is taking liberties with
truth.
Overlooking all forms of Hindu persecution,
the book states that Brahmins and ulema were equally permitted to propagate
their respective faiths. References to the infamous 'pilgrimage tax' are
conveniently dropped.
A crucial feature of the political
philosophy of the Sultanate was its pan-Islamic aspect. All sultans looked
to the Caliph as the source of their legitimacy, and even after the Caliph
was murdered and the Caliphate abolished, his name continued to appear
on the coins of the sultans of India.
Yet the phenomenon of pan-Islamism
is neither mentioned nor discussed anywhere in the text. The section on
the Sufis is another piece of deception. There is no mention of 'warrior
Sufis', their participation in frontier warfare, or their role in bringing
fresh territory under Islam. Instead, we are told that they advised Hindus
to be better Hindus.
The Mughal period, too, is selectively
purged of its unpleasant facets. Akbar's early measures like the re-naming
of Hindu holy cities, the imposition of the jaziya and forced conversions
are ignored, as also the fact that as much as 70 percent of his mobility
consisted of foreign Muslims. The limited Hindu participation in the upper
echelons of the nobility is not alluded to.
Much is made of the translation
of Hindu epics into Persian on the orders of the emperor. But it is nowhere
mentioned that the objective of this enterprise was to wean away the Hindu
administrative and political class from its own language and script. The
'patronage' of Hindu writers needs to be examined afresh in view of the
fact that the greatest Hindu writer of the age, Goswami Tulsidas, certainly
never received any state patronage, either before or after the Ramcharit
Manas.
The discussion on Din-i-Ilahi is
similarly misleading. It was not intended to dilute the Islamic content
of Akbar's regime. In the words of a leading non-Marxist scholar, it showed
"a surprising indifference of Hinduism". Predictably, Shaikh Ahmad Sirhindi
is not mentioned in the narrative on either Akbar or Jehangir (through
whose successive reigns he lived). His name only crops up later in the
middle of a discussion on Aurangzeb.
The brief treatment of the 50-year
reign of Aurangzeb, who is merely appended to the chapter on Jehangir and
Shah Jehan, is a masterly exercise in evasion. That is why the reader is
unable to comprehend the explanation for the sustained revolts of Marathas,
Sikhs and Jats against Mughal rule.
Incidentally, the word jaziya makes
its appearance here for the first and last time (page 109 of the 123-page
book), though the reader is even bow bot told what the tax was about. If
this is objective history, subjective history might be something to look
forward to.
(The author is Reader, Delhi University,
and teaches history)
