Future of Indian past
Romila Thapar
Hindustan Times
March 1, 2004
http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_592667,00120001.htm
In recent times, there has been a substantial
controversy over the
interpretation of Indian history. There is a
confrontation between
historians who have been writing on various
aspects of Indian history over
the last half century and others who are supportive
of a different history
which validates the ideology of religious
nationalism. The latter is being
propagated and patronised by the current
government at the Centre.
The controversy began over the attempt to
discredit the existing history
textbooks for schools, published by the NCERT. It
was argued by the
government that the books contained statements
that had been objected to by
various religious organisations. For example,
reference to the eating of
beef in ancient India or the origins of
caste in Indian society was said to
be inappropriate. It was then decided that all
such passages would be
deleted and no discussion on these passages would
be allowed in schools.
Historians as well as members of the public
protested about this, but no
attention was paid to the protest. In 2003, the
existing textbooks were
replaced by new ones approved of by the
government. These procedures had not
been processed through the committees that
normally process educational
procedures and changes, since these committees were
not called to meet and
discuss the changes.
An attempt was also made to introduce a uniform
history syllabus at the
level of undergraduate and graduate education. The
suggested syllabus was so
substandard that it has been unacceptable in the
better departments of
history. Attempts have also been made to virtually
ban two major
publications of documents from the National
Archives, pertaining to the
period just prior to 1947. An atmosphere has been
created where books on
history, if disapproved by government, can be
banned.
The question that needs to be asked is why there
is a fear of independent
history writing. One reason for this is that the
interpretation of the past
has to now conform to the concepts of religious
nationalism and the identity
that it creates, and which identity is being
sought by sections of the
middle-class supporting this ideology. The new
middle-class emerging from
diverse groups is searching for a bonding. This is
also linked in part to
the insecurity and competition emerging from globalisation.
Added to this is
what is perceived as a threat from underprivileged
sections of society
demanding their legitimate rights. The ideological
support of the bonding
comes from the ideology of Hindutva and focuses on
origins and identities.
Hindutva gives a definition to these that draws on
history and requires
changing history in order to legitimise religious
nationalism.
Both Hindu and Muslim religious nationalisms
emerged in the early 20th
century and became a counterpart to anti-colonial
nationalism. Where the
latter was inclusive and tried to bring together
the segments of Indian
society, the former divided Indian society into a
supposedly
irreconcilable dichotomy - Hindu and Muslim, and the
one excluded the other.
Pre-modern Indian history written from the
perspective of anti-colonial
nationalism and from religious nationalism
overlapped at some points, but in
the major part it differed. For anti-colonial
nationalism the confrontation
was with the colonial power. For the religious
nationalisms, the
confrontation was with the other religious
community and the colonial power
received pledges of support from them. As far as
historical interpretation
was concerned both religious nationalisms - Hindu
and Muslim - were rooted
in the perspective of colonial interpretations of
Indian history.
The two themes that are central to the current
rewriting of history in India
focus on origins and identity, since these were
crucial to the definition of
the Hindu according to the ideology of Hindutva.
On the question of origins
there is an attempt to link all Hindus to the
Aryans of antiquity. It is
argued that the Aryans were the earliest
inhabitants of India. Therefore,
there is an insistence on stating that the
civilisation of the Harappan
cities was authored by the Aryans.
What is still widely known as the Indus civilisation is now
given the name
Saraswati civilisation, and this evokes an Aryan
connection. Furthermore, it
is argued that the Aryans were indigenous to India. This provides a
lineal
descent of 5,000 years to Hindus in the
subcontinent. Sanskrit is projected
not only as unique but ancestral to all
Indo-European languages; thus Aryan
culture went out from India. Other historians
have argued that such theories
are unsupported by the evidence from archaeology
and linguistics, nor by the
history of caste or the history of Hinduism;
neither can the
agro-pastoralism of the Rigveda be equated with
the sophisticated urbanism
of the Indus cities.
The second theme relates to identity and here
again the attempt is to give
primacy to the Hindu identity. This focuses on the
question of who is
indigenous and who is foreign. The definition of
the Hindu as the indigenous
category goes back to the founding ideologue of
Hindutva, V.D. Savarkar. He
argued that the claim to being indigenous must be
based on a person locating
his pitribhumi (land of his ancestors) and his
punyabhumi (land of his
religion) within the boundary of British India. The latter
disqualifies
Muslims and Christians, who were therefore
declared foreign. Communists were
later added to the list!
A further disqualification was the assertion that
they had no common culture
with the Hindus. To emphasise this, race and
language were added as
qualifications, even if race was by now a spurious
category. Having stated
that the Muslims of India are all foreigners, the
interpretation of the
history of medieval India - the 2nd millennium
AD - became the history of
foreign rule, with Hindus being oppressed by the
Muslims. The history of
this period is seen in terms of Muslim conquest
and Hindu resistance. To
this is added the theory that Muslim rule led to
the decline of Hinduism,
overlooking the fact that the Hinduism that is
practised today has evolved
largely from this period.
This history is now projected as new and
indigenous and it is maintained
that unlike the earlier history it is entirely
uninfluenced by western
ideas. In fact, the theories of origins and
identities that are now
propounded are derived from 19th century European
thinking and from colonial
authors. The uniqueness of Sanskrit goes back to
Schlegel at the start of
the 19th century and to the debate on
Indo-European languages among the
Orientalists and in German Romantism. The theory of
the Aryans being
indigenous was first advanced by the Theosophists
in the late 19th century
and some socio-religious reformers.
After much debate, it was given up half a century
later. The Aryan
foundations of Indian history were expounded at
the same time by Max
Mueller, although he argued that they came from
outside India. Aryan origins
played a dominant and devastating role in European
theories of the genesis
of peoples and cultures. These ideas were
incorporated into the wider
ideology of Hindutva.
************************
(The writer is Emeritus Professor of History at Jawaharlal Nehru University.
This is an edited extract of the D.T. Lakdawala
Memorial Lecture, organised
by the Institute of Social Sciences, delivered on
February 21)
|
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
|
|
|
|
![]()
|
Yahoo! Groups Links
