Author: N.S. Rajaram
Publication: The Vijay Times
Date: June 15, 2004
History texts, like all textbooks,
should be periodically updated. But discredited old models should not be
revived behind slogans.
'Saffronization' has no meaning
There is now a heated outcry - it
can't really be called a debate - by some "eminent historians" for desaffronizing
history textbooks written under the previous administration. Supposedly,
the NCERT texts written when Dr Murli Manohar Joshi was the HRD Minister
give an overly Hindu perspective on history. This is what these eminent
historians are calling "saffronization," which they want eliminated. Does
this charge have any substance? I cannot speak for medieval or modern history,
but as far as ancient Indian civilization goes, the term "saffronization"
is meaningless, because Hinduism or Sanatana Dharma (and its offshoots
like Buddhism) is the only source we have to serve as framework for interpreting
ancient texts and archaeology. To "desaffronize", are we to read the Vedas
as Christian scripture or treat Harappan remains as Islamic monuments?
This is the kind of absurdity we
land into when we substitute slogans for facts and reason. A more subtle
example is the misrepresentation of the word Arya and the nature of the
Aryan civilization. These eminent historians, led by Irfan Habib, charge
that suggesting an indigenous origin for the Aryan civilization somehow
constitutes "saffronization." So, according to this eminent historian,
and others of his school, we should attribute the Aryan civilization -
which is more properly called the Vedic civilization (including its offshoots)
- to foreign migrants. This is nothing but the revival of the discredited,
divisive colonial model based on the infamous Aryan invasion theory. This
colonial offspring is now the favored child of the Secularist brigade.
Hidden motives
This gives a clue to the real motive
behind the cry for "desaffronization": to revive the discredited old model
of the Aryan invasion, now being repackage as Aryan migration. The goal
is the same- to make the Vedic civilization non-Indian in origin and keep
it separated from Harappan archaeology. These 'eminent historians' hide
the fact that this division- attributing the Harappan civilization to the
Dravidians and the Vedic language and literature to the invading Aryans
served British colonial interests. In fact, the British made no secret
of their goal to present themselves as the later and "better" brothers
of the original Aryans who invaded India. Here is what Stanley Baldwin,
Prime Minister of Great Britain, once said in the House of Commons (1929):
"Ages and ages ago, there sat, side
by side, the ancestors of the English, Rajputs and Brahmins. Now, after
ages, .the two branches of the great Aryan ancestry have again been brought
together by Providence.. By establishing British rule in India, God said
to the British, 'I have brought you and the Indians together after a long
separation, not in order that you should lord over them, or that you should
exploit them, but in order that should recognize your kinship with them..
It is your duty to raise them to their own level as quickly as possible,
and work together; brothers as you are, for the evolution of humanity..'
"
And here is what Max Muller, seen
as a great lover of India wrote in his Autobiography: "Lord Derby, then
Secretary of State for India, declared that the scholars [like himself]
who had discovered and proved the close relationship between Sanskrit and
English, had rendered more valuable service to the [British] Government
of India than many a regiment." Needless to say, Max Muller was generously
paid by the British Government for his part.
All this 'scholarship' was part
of the agenda to divide the people of India into antagonistic groups under
labels like Aryan and Dravidian to facilitate colonial rule and conversion
to Christianity. The most influential figure in this was probably Robert
Caldwell, Bishop of Tirunelveli, who wrote the highly influential Comparative
Grammar of the Dravidian or South Indian Family of Languages. First published
in 1856, it continues its influence today, especially in Tamil Nadu. This
is due less to its scholarly content than the fact that it became the political
manifesto of Dravidian politicians who not infrequently engaged in vulgar
conduct towards innocent people that were labeled as descendants of Aryan
oppressors.
Needless to say the Aryan civilization
of ancient India is not the same as the 'Aryan civilization' concocted
by such characters, any more than of the Nazis who also claimed to be Aryans.
India's 'eminent historians' who came to dominate the scene after Independence
rarely took issue with this disgraceful chapter in Indian historiography.
And now they are raising the cry of "saffronization," as a new generation
of scholars has gone on to rubbish this European fabrication still favored
by Secularist worthies, especially the 'eminent historians.'
Their recent conduct gives a clue
to another motive: they want their own textbooks, based on such disreputable
scholarship, to be brought back! This way they can continue to get royalties
from the sale of their books, and save also their reputations. It is after
all a matter of record that in the nearly fifty years of their domination,
these 'eminent historians' have contributed next to nothing to ancient
history. One look at the latest edition on early India by one its most
eminent members ignores the two most important developments of recent decades-
the discovery of the Vedic Sarasvati and the Vedic-Harappan identity. All
it is, is a rehash of colonial authors like A.L. Basham and Vincent Smith.
If we want to bring back obsolete texts, why not bring these originals
back instead of their weak imitations? At least they are in better English.
Santayana on historical revision
One of the arguments advanced is
that we need to recognize India's composite culture. Of course we do, but
in its proper historical context. Indian culture has always been composite.
Vedic texts, especially the Rigveda, represent an ideal meant for the elite.
There were always popular practices that found outlet in traditions like
tantra and other heterodox systems. Even within the Vedic tradition, in
the Atharvaveda and the Taittiriya Samhita, we have elements that did not
strictly adhere to the Vedic orthodoxy. Dravidian rulers also never excluded
themselves from the Vedic Aryan fold even when retaining their regional
identity. Terms like Aiyya, Iyer and many others clearly demonstrate this.
Pluralism does not mean exclusivity. Also, recent studies by David Frawley
and this writer suggest that the proto-Vedic culture of the South, especially
in coastal regions, might be older, and the source of the Vedic culture
that reached its culmination in the Sarasvati valley.
So the issue is not really the composite
nature of the Indian culture, which no one denies, but attempts to remove
the Indian contribution by attributing the Vedas also to foreign origin
like Christianity and Islam. This way, India would have no civilization
of its own, which is the Marxist dogma and obsession. This is unhistorical.
Also, no reasonable person can be
against review and revision. After all, all knowledge is transient and
history is no exception. No less a philosopher than George Santayana once
said: "History is always written wrong, it needs always to be re-written."
But we cannot allow slogans to stifle debate and sneak in discredited knowledge
in obsolete textbooks. If we were to follow such practice in science, we
would have physics texts that ignore Relativity and Quantum Physics, and
biology texts that reject Darwin's Theory of Evolution. The latter is what
some Christian Fundamentalist outfits are trying to do in American schools
in the name of Creationism. It is called obscurantism.
The Secularist call to bring back
old theories, in books written mostly by themselves, is no different. It
is obscurantism in the guise of "desaffronization."
____________
Dr. N.S. Rajaram, Dean of Humanities
at the Vivekananda Yoga Maha Vidyapeeth in Bangalore, has written extensively
on ancient India. His books include Vedic Aryans and the Origins of Civilization
with David Frawley and The Deciphered Indus Script with Natwar Jha.
