Hindu Vivek Kendra
«« Back
Some Red Horrors

Some Red Horrors

Author: Atul Rawat
Publication: Bharatiya Pragna
Date: October, 2004

Introduction: The Communists have never believed in academic honesty. The books written by communist historians are not balanced in chronological presentation of Indian History. At certain places the bias seems to have been highlighted by the misuse of deceptive language and contain factual errors.

There are many biases and distortions besides factural inaccuracies that are easily visible in the history text books written by liftist historians. Some of the more controversial points are discussed in the following pages. An overview will show that many of the misinterpretations and misrepresentations are so dangerous to the Indian nationhood that they had to be discarded by the NDA government. Now when the Congress led UPA government is in power with the support of the Communists they are bringing back the books written by leftist historians. This is a struggle for the minds of the future generation and if they are allowed to be captured by anti-national and unpatriotic forces, the very existence of the nation will be in jeopardy. The history which terms the Aryans as foreigners and Mughals as indigenous, which calls Guru Teg Bahadur as a person involved in plunder and rapine while calling Aurangazeb as a zinda-pir or a living-saint, which portrays Guru Arjun Dev as a thug and Shivaji as a regional leader to create Maratha nationalism, which teaches Ram, Krishna and Shiv as myth and the sacrifice of Padmini as a folk-tale and teaches great Indian revolutionaries as terrorists cannot be allowed to be taught to the next generation of India. Some of the distortions were sought to be removed but with the old books written by leftist historians entering the class rooms through a surreptitious back door it has become all the more necessary to expose the anti-national designs of the red-slaves.

1. R.S.Sharina, Ancient India (New Delhi, NCERT 1999).

"A little earlier than 1500 B.C. the Aryans appeared in India. We do not rind clear and definite archaeological traces of their advent." (p.71)

This is an interesting reference where the author is himself giving an argument opposite to his own stated stand. While he writes that: "A little earlier than 1500 BC the Aryans appeared in India." But in the very next sentence he disproves himself by saying that "we do not find clear and definite archaeological traces of their advent." It is to be noted that the author has placed more reliance on the archaeological evidence than the literary sources which he calls mythologies (see page 21 of the same book for relative importance of the sources). The author has used the lack of archaeological evidence to disprove many parts of traditional history in the same book. But despite accepted lack of archaeological "traces", he still stubbornly believes that somehow the Aryans came into India from outside without leaving any traces of their advent. Whatever archaeological or literary sources may say, the Aryans cannot be original inhabitants of India. In reality, it is not because of history but politics that the author believes that the Aryans came to India from outside. Is it not a strange point of view that the same school of historians call Aryans as foreigners and the Mughals as Swadeshi?

2. R.S. Sharma, Ancient India (New Delhi, NCERT 1999).

"Several tribal or the clan-based assemblies such as the sabha, samiti, vidhatha, gana are mentioned in the Rig-Veda." (p.73)

The Sabha, the Samiti, the Vidhatha and the Gana, were great institutions of the Vedic times. Since the author is out to prove Aryans as barbarian pastoral nomads and not civilized people by stretching the truth to unimaginable lengths if need be, he is calling these great institutions as tribal. The concept of tribe itself is alien to India, and since the author subscribes to western ideology, his terms of reference have little value to understand the Indian institutions. Can one apply the Western concepts like tribe of or feudalism etc. to the Indian institutions and term Jana of Sanskrit as tribe and Samant of Sanskrit as feudal? Without these basic controversies being solved, it is wrong to impose the views generated out of foreign ideologies on the students as facts of history.

3. R.S. Sharma, Ancient India (New Delhi, NCERT 1999).

"The dasas and dasyus who were conquered by the Aryans, were treated as slaves and shudras." (p.75)

When it is not sure whether the Aryans came to India from some foreign land, how can one be so sure of the conquering of the dasas and dasyus. An image is sought to be built as it Aryans were victors and were behaving as foreign conquerors against the vanquished natives, while the author has above accepted that there are no evidences of their advent. The other aspects of the controversy are not even informed and this points to some design on the part of the ideologically biased historians.

4. Romila Thaper, Ancient India (New Delhi, NCERT 1987).

"Brahmin minister called Chanakya also known as Kautilya trained a young man Chandragupta by name of the Maurya Family." (p.60)

Chanakya has been relegated to the position of a Brahmin minister. The intended pun is more than clear. This is a pathetic disdain for the great sage who not only built first all-India empire in historical times but was a great-learned person who wrote Arthasastra, the famous treatise on material aspects of national life including politics. Similarly no proper reference to Chanakya and the liberation struggle he created against Nandas at the end of which Chandragupta came to throne has been made even in the text book for XI written by Prof. R.S. Sharma. At least it is expected that students at this level should know the history of Chankaya.

5. R.S. Sharma, Ancient India (New Delhi, NCERT 1999).

"An important law-book is the Arthashastra of Kautilya. The text is divided into fifteen books, of which II and III may be regarded as of an earlier date. They seem to have been the work of different hands. This text was put in its final form in the beginning of the Christian era...... (p.17).

It is known as established fact in history that Asthashatra was written by Kautilya. He has himself mentioned in the book that he has consulted many other earlier books on the subject but to downgrade one of the greatest sage, intellectual and statesman of hoary Hindu past and the great book which he wrote, the author seems to have gone out of the way to prove that the book in present form is an interpolated work. A certain tendency to bring the dates of the events and the books that can be the sources of history forward to prove that they are not as ancient as the tradition persists is easily visible all through the description. Bringing forward the dates and trying to prove that events are of much more later date than the tradition would say, is a peculiar tendency of leftist historians which they have inherited from colonial historians, who in turn believed in the Christian traditions according to which the world was formed in 4004 BC and thus anything could not be older than that date. Elsewhere in the same book, the same author has explicidy written that the literary evidences are not as reliable as archaeology.

6. Romila Thaper, Ancient India (New Delhi, NCERT, 1987).

A bias against Indian religions is absolutely clear in pages (82-83) which describe religion in South India from 200 BC to 300 AD. Notably, this is a period when Christianity has not taken roots even in Europe. The author has described Christianity in 40 lines, while Hinduism, Jainism, and Buddhism, all put together have been given 26 lines. The whole book actually is on the Buddhist history of North India rather than ancient India. The book is also regionally unbalanced as it contains nothing about Brahmaputra valley and even the history of South India is also meagerly described.

7. R.S.Sharma, Ancient India (New Delhi, NCERT 1999).

"Historical value" is taken to mean information needed for reconstructing political history. Compared to Pauranic traditions, inscriptions are certainly more reliable." (p.21)

The author has tried to bias the minds of young students against the Puranic tradition and calls the inscriptions to be more reliable. There are known incidents in Indian History where attempts were made to wrongly read inscriptions. The wrong reading of the Hathi-gumpha inscription about of king Kharavel of Orissa has led to a major controversy about the years of rule of the Maurya dynasty. Actually, any sources of Indian history are reliable or ureliable only within their own limitations. Many scholars would attempt to put more emphasis on the foreign travellers' accounts but they have their own limitations. For example, how much the foreign traveler was able to understand the language and customs of the people and with what bias did he write it? Similarly, some scholars would lay emphsize on archaeological sources where chance plays a big role. In the same way, some scholars might lay emphasis on literary sources. So showing preference to one sort of sources in comparision to others is an indication of bias. An unbiased historian will use all the sources in a manner where they will support and supplement each other. But since the Puranic tradition creates a hurdle for such kind of history which the leftist school of thought wants to reconstruct, the deride the Puranic sources.

8. R.S. Sharma, Ancient India (New Delhi, NCERT 1999).

"People ate beef, but they did not take pork on any considerable scale." (p.45)

The author has been able to create an unnecessary and avoidable controversy over beefeating in a school text book. He is trying to instigate and hurt the feelings of the Hindus by saying that beef was eaten by their ancestors. Interestingly, a few lines above he has been describing how the people kept cows sheep, goats, pigs and buffaloes. If people "did not take pork on any considerable scale", what would they do of their pigs? After all the entire animal has just no other use.

Back                          Top

«« Back
  Search Articles
  Special Annoucements