Child Abuse: NCERT Style
Friday, 3. July 2009 - 1:34 AM
Here’s a common reprimand parents give their errant children: Is this what they teach you in school?
Let’s recall Eminent Historians: Their Technology, Their Line, Their Fraud. This path breaking book not only unmasked the eminences but awoke an entire generation of thinking Indian youth. In a way, it was a work that can rightly be termed as an effort in course-correction. In retrospect, the education system of my generation injected a healthy distaste for history: it’s all about dates and years and wars, who the fuck wants to know what Aurangzeb did, who cares what Indus Valley civilization was all about. The end of 10th standard exams meant freedom from history.
Reading Eminent Historians made me–and thousands others–realize that at least two generations of Indians were victims of child abuse thanks mainly to NCERT.
But reading about the historical misdeeds committed by these eminent historians is one thing and reading the actual “history” these worthies propagated is entirely another things. The former is akin to reading a crime report/FIR while the latter is like being present at the actual scene of crime. The first hand impact always hits you harder.
Eminent Historians did definitely initiate some course correction but it’s always easy, and quicker to relapse into bad habits. Enter Arjun Singh.
Recently, some kind folks pointed my attention to some “appalling” distortions in the recent NCERT history textbooks. I scanned through a few random items. Which was enough to make me take some of these history textbooks for some re-education–being present on the scene of the crime like I said. What I learned was severely interesting.
Our Pasts – II, the Class VII history text book is a brilliant specimen. While the instances Arun Shourie has quoted in Eminent Historians are good examples of pretty blatant distortions, the current crop is a study in nuance. It injects both a subtler form and variant of poison in impressionable minds untainted by ideology. Poor kids think they are actually getting an education. Some random examples follow.
Example 1:
A section on temple towns (Page 76-77) doesn’t mention anything at all about why temple towns were renowned as they still are. It simply calls it a “pattern of urbanization” and then drives the point home rather quickly and directly: they were commercial centers where “temple authorities used their wealth to finance trade and banking.” Show me exactly one historical temple town which did this. A simpler logic is available: what was the king for, if not to direct and manage trade and commerce?
Example 2:
The second exhibit is a repetition of the same fabrication quoted in Eminent Historians concering the destruction of temples. The last section on Page 65 is boldly titled Why were Temples Destroyed? The answer quoted verbatim: “Because kings built temples to demonstrate their devotion to God and their power and wealth, it is not surprising that when they attacked one another’s kingdoms they often targeted these buildings.” (Bold added) And who were these temple-destroying kings?
-
Shrimara Shrivallabha, a Pandyan king invaded Sri Lanka and removed all valuables and carted off lots of golden images of the Buddha in the Jewel Palace and other Buddhist monasteries. But didn’t the section title read “why were temples destroyed?“
-
Rajendra I, the Chola king who carted off lots of sculptures and idols of the Chalukyas and Kalingas of Orissa. Note again the mention about temple destruction. None whatsoever.
-
And then Mahmud of Ghazni gets ICU-level care compared to these vile (Hindu) kings. Reproduced verbatim: “During his campaigns…he also attacked the temples of defeated kings and looted their wealth and idols. Sultan Mahumud was not a very important ruler at that time. But by destroying temples…the one at Somnath…he tried to win credit as a great hero of Islam. In the political culture of the Middle Ages, most rulers displayed their political might…by attacking and looting the places of worship of defeated rulers.
This section is followed by a weighty question designed to instill the virtues of self-thinking as a way to stimulate the intellect of the student. Here’s the question: “In what ways do you think the policies of Rajendra I and Mahmud of Ghazni were a product of their times? How were the actions of the two rulers different?” The way the questions are framed leaves you no room for a “wrong” answer. Gold-standard Propaganda.
Example 3:
Next, the section on Sikhism is robbed similarly of context. Nothing about Guru Nanak’s (and most other Sikh Gurus) explicit proclamation of Sikhism as a movement to counter Islam’s barbarity is mentioned. Barring a stray mention of Jahangir’s clampdown of Sikhs fearing their revolt, the section completely emasculates the warrior spirit of this amazing race of people. The Sikhs were among the strongest forces who helped check the almost wholesale Islamization of the entire North India.
Example 4:
Basvanna and the Vira Shaiva movement is given selective treatment. The textbook glorifies this movement as a reaction against the evils of Brahmins, the caste system, rituals, and idol worship. I leave it to your learning of history to verify the degree of selectiveness this exhibits.
This level of finely-crafted distortion is hardly surprising if you look at the list of contributors to the textbook. Every eminence on the textbook committee hails from one or the other of the hallowed portals of secularism: Delhi University, Aligarh Muslim University, and Mahatma Gandhi University, Kottayam. The lion’s share of contributors hail–quite evidently, from the Mecca, JNU.
I found these four gems during just a quick scan. And this, just in one part of History textbooks for Class VII. If I dive deeper and cast my net wider, I’m sure to extract the almost limitless treasure hidden in the Ocean’s bottom. I intend to make an NCERT Child Abuse series. This is just the preface.
Tags: Arun Shourie, Attack on Hinduism, Commentary, Education, Eminent Historians, Eminent Historians Book, History, History Distortion Continues, India, Indian History Falsified, Indian Politics, NCERT Child Abuse, NCERT History Textbooks, NCERT Textbooks, Poisoning Children, Pseudosecularism Hall of Shame, Society & Culture, Toxic History Textbooks
3. July 2009 - 2:49 AM
“the education system of my generation injected a healthy distaste for history:”
Healthy?! Wouldn’t ‘un’healthy distaste be more appropriate? Shouldn’t we be proud of our history, i.e. celebrate our successes and learn from our mistakes?
An important point is that it matters a lot … LOT … on where you go to school. If you go to a missionary school, what you learn would be a lot different than, if you go to a Ramakrishna Mission school (in Bengal) or similar other “Ashramic” school.
3. July 2009 - 2:52 AM
Bhavananda,
I suppose my intent didn’t come out well…in the first place, isn’t it dangerous to develop a distaste for history, esp in early schooling?
3. July 2009 - 3:50 AM
I wonder if we can start a history Wiki. We can contribute in the beginning, and as it catches on we can invite people who are really interested in history and not just distorting facts. Just an idea. I’m eager to volunteer.
3. July 2009 - 3:58 AM
It is absolutely dangerous for the survival of any race/country and its morale. That was exactly what Macaulay intended to do and the opposite of what Swami Vivekananda tried. Obviously, Macaulay ultimately triumphed. India is still churning out good quality “clerks” to serve the western needs.
What amazes me more is that their legacy (?) still continues. All the Brits has to do is provide a “felicitation” from Oxford university to the Indian Maharaj or a pat on its back a bit. Does MMS praising British rule in Oxford ring a bell?
3. July 2009 - 5:57 AM
It really amazes me how ignorant most Indians are of their own history. Most Indians you can have a decent conversation with have mostly read on their own–My husband says there was a book he had when he was young–it was by a British author before the fifties–the book did not hide the “unpleasant” aspects of Indian history, as people did not need to be PC back then. Also eyewitness accounts are very good. Books by people such as Bernier “Travels in the Moghul Court” cannot hide what when on during those times…
3. July 2009 - 6:00 AM
Perhaps we could compile a list of trustworthy sources on Indian history for a start…
3. July 2009 - 6:16 AM
How about raising money for a library dedicated to books on Indian history–from all kinds of eyewitness sources and otherwise? The idea would be to enable people to have access to out of print books on Indian history. How about a history library dedicated to this. Indians are capable of raising money for temples, why not such a thing?
3. July 2009 - 6:45 AM
I am curious to know what books you guys have read. Here are some I am familiar with.
1)Francois Bernier Travels in the Mogul Empire. French physician writing but his eyewitness accounts give an insight into India of the time…
2) Andre Wink Al Hind. Making of the Indo-Islamic world in three volumes. Very good historian balanced and without ideological bias.
3)Al Biruni–of course writes from a Muslim perspective, nevertheless you can learn a lot from his book about India of the time if you keep and open mind.
4) Kitab-i-Yamini A Muslim account of the invasion of India, contains parts about the invasion of Kashmir.
5)Will Durant A Case for India. Banned by the British when it came out. Shows how the liberals in the West supported the Indian independence movement…
3. July 2009 - 6:57 AM
Kalhana–Rajatarangini(Sanskrit history of Kashmir) translated by Aurel Stein, who was a remarkable man and explorer. Aurel Stein lost several toes on account of frostbite during his expeditions due to his dedication to scholarship…He wanted to show to posterity how Buddhism entered the Middle Kingdom. He brought back the first known printed book “The Diamond Sutra” to London from his expedition to China–
3. July 2009 - 7:07 AM
My husband recommends:
Jadunath Sarkar–has writeen some goods books
and two Muslim historians:
Barani and Firistha.
3. July 2009 - 7:11 AM
excuse the typos above
My husband recommends:
Jadunath Sarkar–has written some good books
and two Muslim historians:
Barani and Firistha (I am not familiar with any of these books)
3. July 2009 - 7:12 AM
Waiting to hear of good history books from the rest of you…
3. July 2009 - 7:14 AM
Our history teacher taught us in a manner that made us believe in the pithy “Those Who Forget their History Are Doomed to fail in the board exams.” Thus, our association with the history as written by our eminent historians ended with the social science board exams.
Nice post, BTW. Looking forward to more.
3. July 2009 - 7:17 AM
Will Durant on India in “Our Oriental Heritage” is also a good source for general readers.
Chronicles of Hsieun Tsang (scholar who travelled to India)gives a Chinese perspective.
3. July 2009 - 8:25 AM
@larissa: Read June month’s “Pragati” (pdf can be found here) in case you haven’t already.
3. July 2009 - 11:06 AM
what are the chances of a KAPEEM style action in India?
3. July 2009 - 12:08 PM
if we can atleast organise into something similar like CapeeM, even that shall be an acheivement.
3. July 2009 - 12:41 PM
@Amrit Hallan
excellant thought to start a history Wiki.
3. July 2009 - 1:13 PM
Amrit Hallan, your suggestion for a wiki is spot on. In fact I had got a domain registered (indichistory.com) for just such a thing sometime back – however have no content as yet. The idea is to build a chronology based purely on indigenous literature, indian sources, and modern authoritative non-colonial, non-eurocentric research. With extensive cross-referencing from various disciplines like archeology, geology, astronomy, hydrology, genetics, historical literature, philology, textual analysis and many others, a correct chronology with supporting literature would gradually emerge. Such effort would cover the history of the various indic people, and those whose cultures were derived from them. However I realize how daunting such a task is. I am at least a year away from putting even preliminary material in place. For whatever it is worth – that is the plan.
I do think a wiki would be a good idea – however as any lay contributions would not be taken seriously by people – it would be necessary to get established (and sympathetic) scholarly contribution. Again any lay contribution would have to be based on original sources – and peer-reviewed, and whetted. That is the only way a factual and honest history can be reconstructed.
Currently there are a few people doing commendable research work – some of their work can be found on the web. However a cumulative source of mutually cross-referenced information is as yet unavailable. To put such a source together would be a worthy effort.
Would be good to know your views on the same.
3. July 2009 - 1:57 PM
Larissa, Gave up on reading compiled histories a long time back. However however there are some eye-opening original research work out there. My personal favourites are the works of K.D. Sethna, Shrikant Talageri, Dharampal.
K.D. Sethna
——————————-
Problems of Ancient India
Ancient India in a New Light
Problems of Aryan Origins
Karpasa in prehistoric India
The problems of Aryan origins
Shrikant Talageri
——————————-
Aryan Invasion Theory – A Reapraisal
The Rigveda: A Historical Analysis
Rigveda and the Avesta: The Final Evidence
Dharampal
——————————-
The beautiful tree
Indian science and technology in the eighteenth century
India before British rule and the basis for India’s resurgence
Despoliation and defaming of India
There is a huge collection of scholarly work at Rajiv Malhotra’s Infinity foundation website – some of which includes history.
http://www.infinityfoundation.com/mandala/history_resources_frameset.htm
http://www.infinityfoundation.com/mandala/h_es/h_es_indian_hist_frameset.htm
http://www.infinityfoundation.com/mandala/history_essays_frameset.htm
3. July 2009 - 3:47 PM
Another much overlooked fact:
There is NO mention whatsoever of communist-inspired genocides in NCERT history books.
There is NO explanation why people living in communist regimes in former USSR and Eastern Europe revolted against communists and brought those regimes down.
NO mention whatsoever of the crimes perpetrated by Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Ceuacescu etc.
In other words, there is a very determined effort in these books either to ignore or whitewash the killings of millions of people.
Imagine a book on 20th century world history that does not mention the Holocaust at all, or if it does, draws no attention to the culpability of Nazis and Nazism.
That’s pretty much what NCERT history books are doing. Their intent seems to be not just that Indian children remain ignorant of communist genocides, but they must also grow up without an understanding of why so-called Maoists kill innocent people.
3. July 2009 - 4:10 PM
OT,
Hold your guns dude. The real series is yet to start. You ain’t seen anything yet. if you can, try to get hold of the chapter on Vietnam and Ho Chi Minh.
3. July 2009 - 7:28 PM
@Rajiv Chandran
I think we should at least get started. Of course facts should be validated before they can be published, but in Wikipedia terminology, some topics are initially “seeded” and then content is built around them. Somehow I feel can contact Arun Shourie and get him involved (even if he has forgotten me, he’ll recognize me if I approach), at a much later stage.
Let’s put our strengths together. Here are mine:
1] Written communication
2] Research
3] I have the server space ready
4] Can setup and install a Wiki or some other social media software
My reading is not that good but I can catch up on that. We can first form a Google group of people who would actively like to get involved with the project. I can set it up, or someone else can.
3. July 2009 - 7:37 PM
Gave up on reading compiled histories a long time back.
Why? Some of them are really good, especially the eyewitness accounts. Even from Alberuni you can learn a lot–once you read from many sources you become smart enough to see where the prejudices are coming from and can put things in a proper perspective. For example when I read Al Beruni I can see where the Muslim biases are coming from, and I can appreciate some good points he makes as to how the prosperity of Hindus was destroyed. Nothing can beat that. For instance, Bernier was a physician in the Mogul court, but he writes of how the peasants were impoverished in the country side–they were taxed very heavily such that there was no incentive for them to work and he compares it to Europe of the time where he says the differences in wealth were not so glaring. One begins to see how India started to slide back. He is not anti-Muslim or anything but reports what he saw about the Indian country side faithfully. He might have a Christian bias and speak of Indian gods as “idols” but he reports what he saw about the peasants. It is easy to see how the poverty of the Indian peasants began due to high taxation.
I find many books written before the fifties to be excellent–people did not need to be PC or prove anything so they wrote what they see. You can learn a lot from such books. I like to read original eyewitness accounts—the ones by Muslim historians are also excellent as they record many details, even the gory details which are unpleasant to read.
Even Will Durant wrote his book after his trip to India–he was very supportive of Indian independence which is why his book was banned at the time by the British for being pro British. American liberals supported the Indian independence movement as did some British liberals.
My husband had a book written by a British historian which wrote of the invasions of India without omitting anything as they do today.
Also I feel many older books are quite good in terms of scholarship quality as well–I am not speaking of histories written to support British rule in India–there are some excellent British historians as well, but most wrote before the fifties.
I read very carefully and am wary of revisionist histories–both by the right and left. When you read enough books, consisting of eyewitness accounts, and by both Muslim, foreign and native historians, you begin to have a very good picture and see where the biases come from–from all sides. For instance, when I read a book by a Christian on India, I can detect the Christian biases, but then he might have some good eyewitness accounts of what he saw if you can put that in perspective and not let his biases disturb that, you can learn something.
This is critical reading and yes you should read old books–they contain a wealth of information–especially the eyewitness accounts.
3. July 2009 - 7:38 PM
I meant to say that Will Durant was banned for being pro-India above not pro British–typo
3. July 2009 - 8:13 PM
The really clinching part of these history books (I studied in A.P.) is that all these gems are cleverly embedded amidst those dreary one-page mentions about the kushans, guptas, satavahanas, rashtrakutas, pallavas, chalukyas, etc etc etc, all in one-academic year. No mention of their culture, no mention of life-styles, and absolutely no mention of the exploits of the really great kings like Shalivahana or Samudragupta (Oh, Ashoka and Akbar were mentioned alright, but we know their game!). Even Shivaji was just another historical character for me, if it were not for my Maharashtrian upbringing at home.
There is really no way a child of 7th or 8th standard can remember or even show an interest in so much content being dumped over him/her in just one academic year without any emphasis on why it is important to study history.
In contrast, I was irritated to see that Otto Von Bismarck was eulogised as “a tall blond man of Prussia with a heavy moustache” and paens were sung for his “blood and iron” policy, during his drive to unify Germany for his Prussian King Wilhelm II become the emperor of Germany!
That, my friends, is the scholarship of SSC (Secondary School Certificate) of A.P. (when I studied, atleast!)
3. July 2009 - 9:45 PM
BTW –the American liberals who supported Indian independence were a different bunch from the Western liberals today—at least in my estimation. The former consisting of people like Will Durant were enlightened folk.
4. July 2009 - 2:43 AM
Sandeep can u get on twitter please, all my other fav bloggers are on it. Thanks.
4. July 2009 - 12:20 PM
Please read very good book “Yavudu Charitre” from Dravid University. The real history described by Mr. MVR Shastry (Telugu) and translated to Kannada by Mr. Babu Krishnamurthy (author of Ajeya and Editor of Karmaveer – Kannada Magazine)
Books will be availabe in
Keshava Shilpa, Near Uma Theatre, Chamrajpete
Keshava Shilpa, Rangarao Road, Shankar Puram
Sapna Book House
Please go through the Catalogue
http://www.dravidianuniversity.org/downloads/New_Catalogue.pdf
5. July 2009 - 5:55 AM
Rajiv Chandran ->
Shrikant G Talageri- The Rigveda: A Historical Analysis
ebook available at – voi.org/books/rig/
The conclusions are revolutionary.
Sandeep,
great work.
Radha Rajan’s newly released “Eclipse of Hindu Nation, Gandhi and his freedom struggle” . Very informative.
5. July 2009 - 8:49 AM
Notable that Pragati magazine linked by commenter ‘ego’ while discussing the AIT/OIT in various articles seems to be ignorant of Shrikant Talageri’s book mentioned above which was published 9 years back!
Is it due to lack of knowledge about the book or is it that a native indian’s analysis is not considered conclusive, unless wetted by a foreigner, that too not by the likes of Dr Koenraad Elst, but only by the likes of Doniger or Witzel or one of their children ?
6. July 2009 - 4:43 AM
@Amrit Hallan – thanks for your reply. Lets take this issue offline from this forum. I shall contact you shortly at your website. We can discuss further through personal correspondence.
6. July 2009 - 6:17 AM
@Incognito – yes, I visited the site long ago – and got persuaded to buy all three books by Talageri. By taking on western historians and linguists on thier home-ground, ie philology and textual analysis, and exposing the willful distortions and academic subterfuge – he was one of the first to demonstrate the sleight of hand at work in historical indology. He was also bold enough to have proposed the OIT hypothesis, and stuck to it – considering that he was a near non-entity when he first published his works. It was the ex-editor of Times of India Shri Girilal Jain who first noticed and popularized his work – by means of a Times of India editorial. His observations, research, methodology and conclusions have got increasingly sophisticated over time.
His OIT hypothesis suggests a plausible scenario of the outer, middle and internal proto-indo-european speakers native to northwest, northern and central india respectively. By the time of composition of the RgVeda many of the northwestern tribes had already left india and were slowly spreading north and northwestwards. The middle indo-europeans were the indo-aryans to whom the credit fot composition of the Vedas go, and proto-indo-iranians. In due course proto-indo-iranians moved out of India into southern and eastern afghanistan and went on to compose the early avestan works (including zend-avesta, the gathas etc) at a time contemporaneous with the concluding stages of the Rg-veda. The language of internal indo-aryans from east and central india would ultimately subsume those of the vedic indo-aryans in the saptha-sindhu in a gradual process of centuries of diffusion – thus creating classical sanskrit – which would then go on to form the basis of most Indian languages over a period of time. This also explains why indo-aryan and dravidian dialects are structurally so similar – in spite of having differing vocabulary. The northwestern tribes continue thier migration northwestward eventually seeding thier language through most of eurasia. Such scenarios explain much better the differences in structure but similarity of vocabulary between european and indian languages – than any of the fantasy prone invasion/migration/complex diffusion theories. The best part is that Talageri reaches his conclusions based on primary texts, and using tools and techniques of philologists themselves. That a self-trained person like Talageri is able to take on, hold his ground and rout these eminences on their own ground – is as much a reflection of the quality of his research as it is of the abysmally low competence levels of mainstream indologists.
6. July 2009 - 8:42 PM
he abysmally low competence levels of mainstream indologists.
I always fail to understand why Indians are so obsessed with “aryan” whatever. I do not think people really care. I recently met some Sri Lankan Christians claiming to be “Aryan” and they were as dark as pitch? What’s up with this? This Aryan nonsense has apparently done a lot of damage, not just to Indians!
All I can say is India is really diverse and most peoples from different regions never married each other until very recently–Even amongst the same castes you see very stark regional differences in terms of looks, manners and behavior etc., etc. Even people from the same caste have very little in common across regions. What holds them together is a common civilizational ethos.
My take on it is that most of the places where Hindu culture existed have become Muslim–like most parts of the northwest and Kashmir and Afghanistan–although Hindu culture remains strong in places which were later Sanskritized.
I think rather than focusing on this Aryan nonsense, Indians should work to preserve Hindu culture wherever it still exists…What is important is not so much where Aryans (whatever!) originated, but the fact that Hindu culture has been preserved in many parts of India, although Hinduism has retreated more and more in the course of history due to invasions. What is important is the civilizational ethos which still remains…and is in danger of dying out if people continue to be abysmally ignorant of their history and do not teach their children anything…
6. July 2009 - 9:04 PM
he abysmally low competence levels of mainstream indologists.
Well Indians are not that much better–just take a look at what culture India produces. –”Bollywood” –and when the national pastime of Indians is watching Bollywood i.e. soft porn…A culture is reflected in a people’s art, music, literature and architecture…
I find it futule to point fingers at others and wisdom begins with self-criticism.
7. July 2009 - 5:53 AM
The commenter above writes at the end- >>> “I find it futule to point fingers at others and wisdom begins with self-criticism.
The irony of it!
Rajiv Chandran,
Agree. Talageri analyses textual, traditional, archeological and linguistic evidences and fits them all correctly.
Commented the following in Shantanu’s blog-
—-
It appears, the europeans are the master myth makers. They created an Aryan race where none existed and created a myth about their race to India climbing mountains on chariots driven by horses, to ‘displace’ the entire settled population of another race they called the Harappans, from well fortified positions (which were, doubtless, scaled using those horse driven chariots, utilising their past experience of climbing mountains using
them), who were then sent packing to settle down in Tamil Nadu to form the DMK party, which is later expected to create a ‘Dravidistan’ that will be full of “St Thomas’s” (that ‘holy’ disciple of the one and only Son of God Amen!) direct descendants.
No it doesn’t end with that. The Aryans true to form, wrote the Vedas during their lunch breaks between climbing mountains and forts on horse driven chariots.
After ‘displacing’ the indigenous ‘Harappans’, these Aryans promptly abandoned the ‘forts’ to decay on their own and then went about ‘Sanskritization’ in India, which means that having displaced all the Harappans to ‘Dravidian’ Tamil Nadu, they started populating India with ‘untouchables’, another race that they created using Sanskrit mantras. All this was meticulously noted down by Max Mueller, Macaulay and Co who later gave their records to RomeAllah Thappad! of JNU for posterity’s sake.
These ‘untouchables’ were then called Dasyus or the Dasas and it became the pastime of the Aryans to play ‘un-touch’ with the new ‘ables’. Those who managed to un-touch were allowed to continue being Dasyus. Those who touched the Aryans became Sudras, so named after the legendary Aryan king Sudas of the ‘Battle of Ten Kings’ fame. Those who asked the question “Why ?” became Whyshyas. The rest became the Kshatriyas, later lovingly called ‘Thugs’ by discerning English gentlemen. When they began to tire of this game the Aryans started calling themselves Brahmanas and settled down to grow hair on the top of their head. They abandoned their chariots and their racing ways and started doing puja to stones which they called idols until friendly neighbourhood jihadis from pakistan came and started doing ’sutee’ to them.
The wonderful myth of Aryan invasion. The Europains used variants of this myth in other places such as America and Africa to ‘displace’ the local populace there into their own Dravidistans.
The myth continued until some fundamentalist fascist chauvinist ‘Hindutva’ BJP RSS VHP Bajrang Dal saffron historians started questioning the ‘Eminent’ historians about proof.
It was left to a native indian Shrikant G Talageri to prove that Indians are indigenous to India from pre-Vedic times and that it was Europains who had the nomadic character from since those times through his book “The Rigveda: A Historical Analysis” that can be read online at voi.org/books/rig/
—-
The myth making tradition of the europeans is being carried forward by their demic ideological progenies sitting in JNU, DU, Jamia Milia and NCERT who have inflicted upon academic institutions ecdemic in true Gramscian style.
7. July 2009 - 6:53 PM
It was left to a native indian Shrikant G Talageri to prove that Indians are indigenous to India from pre-Vedic times
When you really look at it, no one is indigenous to anywhere if you look back thosands of years–there have been migrations of peoples everywhere. I do not understand this “fixation” with Indians are indigenous to India? So? A lot of people also attacked in India, such as Huns, Scythians, Greeks and others. Indians carry a lot of genes.
Moreover, no one seriously believes that Indians are Aryans–there was no such thing–in the sense of being a “pure” race, this is anthropologically not possible. Aryan is just a designation of the Zoroastrians and early Vedic people who called themselves “noble”–the same way in which Greeks called theselves Hellene as opposed to “barbarian” which they referred to others as they did not understand their language which appeared as “barbar” to them. So this word used by the early Vedic peoples is also perhaps chauvinistic in this way. And which culture is not chauvinistic? If you talk to Chinese, they believe they are the most civilized and so on…
However, there is a “culture” and way of thinking associated with India, just as there is a unique “culture” associated with ancient greece–and a unique “culture” associated with China.
India has many communities, which before were tight knit and did not intermarry and developed in unique ways due to geographical barriers–this is the case for all cultures–even amongst the same castes there are wide differences amongst peoples in India owing to geography and migrations. Many communities have preserved their distinct characteristics and family lineages. This is as pure as it gets.
So I fail so see why it is so important where Indians came from. What matters is that a unique form of culture arose in India which is distinctly Indian and that India was civilization before it was a nation…
7. July 2009 - 7:05 PM
The wonderful myth of Aryan invasion. The Europains used variants of this myth in other places such as America and Africa to ‘displace’ the local populace there into their own Dravidistans.
As for such a myth you are the only person who sees the need to obsess over it because no serious academic believes it–it has long been replaced with models which emphasize cultural interaction amongst peoples…
7. July 2009 - 7:10 PM
The wonderful myth of Aryan invasion. The Europains used variants of this myth in other places such as America and Africa to ‘displace’ the local populace there into their own Dravidistans.
As for such a myth you are the only person who sees the need to obsess over it because no serious academic believes it–it has long been replaced with models which emphasize migrations of peoples and cultural interaction amongst peoples…Culture is not a static thing, but changes as people migrate to different places and interact with each other.
8. July 2009 - 1:02 PM
why Indians are so obsessed with aryan
I would’t know if Indians are generally so obsessed with being ‘Aryan’. But one may point out that there is an ‘aryan’ subtext to social and academic characterization of Indians. Dravidian, adivasi, untouchability & caste system are categories that are all defined as part of this dynamic. Belief in the validity of these categories distorts social, administrative, and cultural policies and perspectives. The alleged fascination with ‘Aryans’ can
also be ascribed to post-colonial hangover, ie people seeking to establish thier allegedly european ancestry by claiming to be aryan, The divisive appeal of this hypothesis itself provides enough reasons examine it carefully.
On the academic side the theory represents a crass eurocentricism that has informed historical and social studies for much too long – from which developing countries are only just begining to extricate themselves. We see now China, a host of african countries, ethnicities like Croats, Kurds, Romas, native American aborigines etc reexamining the history and social theories as handed down to them by western scholars. The same is true for Indian response to hypothesis like Aryan Influx (invasion, migration, diffusion etc) models. This response must be seen as part of a disengagement and disentanglement from the colonial paradigm that has afflicted social studies on India for a long time.
There is a very misleading suggestion here that Indians somehow obsess over ‘Aryans’ and that ‘Aryan’ means master-race. In the context of this discussion such a claim is a trivialization of sophisticated arguments by reputed indian researchers. The definition of Aryan as a ‘Herrenvolk’ is a deeply eurocentric conceit and is utterly inapplicable to in the Indian context where the term ‘arya’ is an honorific. That apart, the revaluation of AIT (and it’s many innocous sounding cousin’s) is necessary because :
* History is constructed from traditional literature. Then corroborative evidence is found in archeology and other supporting disciplines. This is how the history of all other civilizations is constructed. The only exception being – India – where the all the primary sources – the many Puranas and the epics are summarily debunked as myth – and an arbitrary construct of uncertain provenance – the AIT/IE – is relied upon.
* The theory directly contradicts ancient Hindu self-perception, identity and history about themselves. Traditional history of ancient Indians as noted by Herodotus goes back more than 120 generations (or 6000 years) from the time of Alexander’s invasion. This tallies very well with rationalized Puranic chronology. The vedic sources also corroborate chronological continuity of various royal and sagely lines mentioned in the Puranas. Archeologically these time lines coincide with Indus-Saraswati civilization and it’s antecedents. In short, evidence of historical antiquity of India as borne out by the Puranas is becoming increasingly clear with the convergence of evidence from various diverse sources.
* No satisfactory models have been forwarded to support either migration or diffusion models of AIT. The case for AIT is purely philological and was developed when primary archeological sources were insufficient. Archeological, genetic, and textual evidence directly contradict this hypothesis. The OIT hypothesis – though in it’s formative stages – explains language diffusion better.
* It has been shown that AIT is a direct descendant of the biblical origin hypothesis proposed by the early indologists. It has had an unfortunate subtext of racism, nazism, german-nationalism, imperialism, white-supremacism etc, attached to it. More recently it has lent itself to marxists, evangelists and islamists to devalue and degrade indians. Surprisingly, such academic constructs are not unique to India – very similar theories have been used with disastrous consequences to many in Africa and south and central America people. The hypothesis has been used by westerners to grant themselves high antiquity – and lend credence to claims of civilizing mission (something that still continues) around the world.
* Contrary to apologists, the theory is still prevalent in academic as well as popular discourse on India. Even today most facets of indian society are explained on the basis of this hypothesis.
The hypothesis needs to be debunked in all it’s various forms because it is untrue and unnatural, because it denies historical agency to Indians, and because it is an impediment to the development of history based on India’s own sources. It needs to be debunked because it is pernicious and harms Indian psyche, provides a basis for deriding them, divides their society based on false characterizations.
So long as Hindus ignore the serious task of taking control of their own historiography, they will remain – as one poster mentioned here – “abysmally ignorant of their own history”. And therein lies the danger.
8. July 2009 - 1:29 PM
@larissa – I would not readily deride culture, and bollywood as such – even though I am no fan of the movies that are churned out these days. After all each generation decides what is acceptable or unacceptable to them. So many bollywood movies considered classics now – were looked upon with derision in thier own time.
That said there has certainly been an decrease in cultural output of India. It could be due to economic factors, lack of emphasis and pride in one’s own identity, and general pessimism that has been the byproduct of our administrative and educational system. Our administration is still so full of brown sahibs looking down at the country they are “running” and our educational system is still churning out “english clerks”. The problem perhaps lies in a system that denies people agency to control thier own identity.
8. July 2009 - 4:36 PM
This Larissa lady / gent has no clue about the racial and political implications of the Aryan invasion theory in today’s India, and why the church is the most fundamentalist supporter of this theory.
10. July 2009 - 9:21 AM
Nice post.
I writhe with anger whenever I see my friends/acquaintances showing an utter disdain and ignorance for history. Whatever the content/mode of history education in India, a vast majority will always develop “a healthy distaste” for history. Changing that requires a complete overhaul of the entire educational system in India (and not just history coursework). Something that is impossible to happen in the present Indian context.
11. July 2009 - 5:28 AM
someone has a blog on savarkar!
11. July 2009 - 5:29 AM
someone has a blog on Savarkar
http://www.savarkar.org
11. July 2009 - 6:04 AM
I particularly liked his response to those who falsely accused him of being communal:
“I cannot make donkeys think like horses.”
11. July 2009 - 7:24 AM
Well overall the blog is a bit too much despite the good intentions…
How to revive such figures for the general Indians in a way that does not put off anyone by the style of portrayal….
15. July 2009 - 5:52 PM
Here is an emerging picture of the true history of India
http://www.indicstudies.us/PROC14.PS.pdf
- Thanks to Dr Kaushal Vepa and his Indic Studies Foundation, and the many truly eminent contributors to this effort.
15. July 2009 - 9:36 PM
One very interesting book (eyewitness account) I read was by a Prussian count who travelled to India in the 20’s. Count Keyserling–Travel Diary of a Philosopher–He visited India, China, Japan and America and writes of what he saw in these places…His chapter on India is interesting because it shows India in the 20’s from they point of view of a foreigner…His understanding of couse will be limited by his aristocratic background and cirmumstance but it is very interesting to read nevertheless as a travel diary–if you can get through the two thick volumes!!! His thinking was quite ahead for his time.
15. July 2009 - 9:45 PM
Even in colonial times, there were some very interesting visitors to India:
http://www.schoolofwisdom.com/count.html