India not a creation of wars or redrawing of maps

In her article published in these columns (‘Constitution was a product of freedom struggle’, November 30), Neera Chandhoke is no doubt right that “Durbari historians… twist the past. Historians who serve power write of a past as if it was taken out of a fairy tale.” The problem, however, is that she overlooks the fact that the building of historical narratives to fit the requirements of the political class in power started more than five decades ago.

The exercise of building a new historical narrative that sought to understate culture and spiritualism from India’s past started in the 1970s at the high-school level and was enforced at all levels, including the Union Public Service Commission examinations. How biased and motivated history teaching could be can be ascertained from the textbooks that were prescribed for Classes X to XII by the CBSE and published by the NCERT in the 1970s and 1980s and even later. Class XII textbook The Story of Civilisation (1978) had a chapter, ‘India’s Struggle for Independence’. There were nine photos in this chapter. One leader figured in seven and even Mahatma Gandhi found a place in only two. There was no place for anyone else. The Partition of India, a monumental disaster of our past, was discussed in 45 words.

Medieval India was a textbook for CBSE’s Classes XI and XII (1978). While discussing the hugely important issue of religious conversions of medieval India, it noted: “On the whole, conversions to Islam were not effected with the strength of the sword.” The book goes on to justify the period of the Sultans as acceptable and not oppressive. “The absence of any organised resistance from the peasantry” was a sign of relative happiness.

This is what Guru Nanak has to say of the times: “This age is like a drawn sword, the kings are butchers, goodness has taken wings and flown.” The Guru was in Sayyidpur (Gujranwala) when Babur invaded the region in 1521. He writes: “Thou has sent Yama disguised as the great Mughal Babur. Terrible was the slaughter. Did this not awaken pity in thee, oh Lord…”

Chandhoke brushes aside the idea of this ancient land being seen as a unified entity. What she clearly misreads is that India has evolved over millennia and is not a creation of political wars or redrawing of maps. To quote Sri Aurobindo: “India, shut into a separate existence by the Himalayas and the ocean, has always been the home of a peculiar people with characteristics of its own.”

Coming to the issue of governing practices of ancient India, the Rigveda (VI) refers repeatedly to sabha and samiti or a conclave of people (BK Ghosh in The History and Culture of the Indian People: The Vedic Age, Vol I, general editor RC Majumdar). The last hymn of the Rigveda notes: “Assemble, speak together, let your minds be of one accord, the place is common, common the assembly, common the mind, so be their thought united.” The Atharvaveda (III.4) stresses on concord between the king and a body of electors (VM Apte in The History and Culture of the Indian People: The Vedic Age, Vol I).

A sutra of Panini dealing with the period from 600 BC to 400 BC refers to the king as parishad bala, which means a person whose strength lies in the parishad. In fact, in the Upanishads the parishad is referred to as a gathering of specialists. A prayer in the Rigveda, invoked by the king, states: “May the samiti and sabha, the two daughters of Prajapati, concurrently aid me.”

The Vedic term for law is Dharma. Dharma has been the sheet anchor of civilisation in India. To quote Justice Rama Jois: “Dharma is that which sustains and ensures progress of all in the world. It is at this stage of the evolution of human society in India when positive civil and criminal law, the law laying down the powers, duties and responsibility of the king was laid, which marks the commencement of its legal and constitutional history.”

Anyone familiar with the working of bodies such as the University Grants Commission, Indian Council of Social Science Research, Indian Council of Historical Research (ICHR), Indian Council of Philosophical Research and many others over the past some decades would know how these bodies have been controlled and dominated by a particular ideological setup. Academic spaces and chairs of patronage no doubt have to be vacated. This is where the contention lies.

To suggest that Indians were mobilised in large numbers against the British just because of Nehru’s egalitarianism and Gandhi’s ethical approach would do great injustice to countless revolutionaries and those who inspired them. You have only to read the writings of Bankim Chandra Chatterjee and Bal Gangadhar Tilak decades earlier or even the oath of ‘Abhinav Bharat’ (1901). Do remember that Anant Kanhere was just 17 when he was hanged in 1909.

Western scholars and even our own West-inspired ones commonly dismiss our ancient texts such as Ramayana and Mahabharata as sophisticated poems adopted by Indians as religious texts. The fact remains that the ideas in such texts have sustained this ancient land for ages and fortunately find a place in our modern democratic ethos.

I started teaching history at the age of 21 in 1977 and it was the old school of conventional historians we depended upon. But within a few years, a new set of historians emerged, leaving behind RC Majumdar, Jadunath Sarkar, Raghuvir Singh, DB Sen, RK Mookerjee, Ishwari Prasad, Hari Ram Gupta and so many others. They were pushed aside not by more deserving historians but by design and ideological needs.

The ICHR is not following the previous practice of imposing cooked-up historical narratives to suit the needs of the political system. An earnest effort with the support and guidance of a large number of scholars countrywide is being made to fill the gaps and draw attention to legacies and history that have been consciously, indeed by design, overlooked. We stand committed to our resolve — if durbari historians, so be it.