09-09-2006, 03:19 AM
Jha reconstructed here by Vishal Agarwal, hopefully it's the same Vishal who wrote some good articles on this CA episode.
This is from <span style='font-family:Impact'>2002</span>
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Herewith, I start a detailed refutation of Jha's historiography, which is being endorsed by Witzel and Doniger. Following is Part I
****
JHA, D. N. 1998. Ancient India, In Historical Outline (2nd edition).
Manohar Publishers and Distributors: New Delhi.
PREFACE:
The Context and the Subtext of Marxist Historiography With a Special Reference to D. N. Jha's "Ancient India in Historical Outline"
A newspaper article ("Holy Cow a Myth? An Indian Finds the Kick is Real", by Emily Eakin, in The New York Times, dt. 17 August 2002), quotes Professor Michael Witzel of the Harvard University in the following words â
"Indeed, until the Bharatiya Janata Party (sic!) came to power, said Michael Witzel, a professor of Sanskrit at Harvard University, much of the history Mr. Jha records was taught in Indian schools."
<b>Witzel's endorsement of the work of a Marxist historian such as D. N. Jha, and his dig at a member of the ruling coalition of India, betrays the former's political agenda, and puts a question mark on the validity and objectivity of all his recent writings on Ancient India. But more fundamentally, it motivates one to examine critically the historiography of Jha, which was substantially the same as what has been taught to students in India all along.</b>
This multi-part review does precisely that. It highlights, chapter by chapter, some of the major flaws in the most popular and influential history text (title at the top) authored by D. N. Jha, all along exposing the political subtext and context of his work.
1. The Marxist Affiliations of D. N. Jha -
Jha is quoted as one of the several 'Marxist Historians' in the entry 'Hinduism' of 'A Dictionary of The Marxist Thought' (Tom Bottomore et al, 1983, Harvard University Press, p. 204). <b>There are numerous other Indian Publications, wherein Jha HIMSELF refers to himself as a Marxist Historian (references can be provided).</b>
Thus, Dwijendra Narayana Jha belongs to a group (or a `cabal' as his critics prefer to say) of historians who are better known as "Eminent Historians". Most of these historians are either Marxists, or their fellow travelers. After the demise of Communism in Soviet Union, it is no longer fashionable to be a Marxist, and so many of them have assumed titles like `progressive historians', `liberal historians' and the like. Conversely, <b>anyone who differs from these historians, is labeled by the Eminent Historians and their supporters in the elitist English media of India as `Hindu fanatics', `Hindu Nazis', `Hindu Talibans' etc.</b>
These Marxist academicians have often succeeded in conveying an impression of their being `objective', `professional', `progressive' historians writing dispassionate history to western researchers. Within India however, their Marxist credentials are well known, and are even acknowledged by the historians themselves, as well as by their supporters.
It is extremely important to expose the Marxist affiliations of Jha, not in order to ostracize or condemn him, but in order to promote an understanding of where his views of Ancient India are coming from. Jha's text on Ancient India is not a dispassionate, `objective' narrative. Rather, it is a Marxist view of our past. This view decries Indian Nationalism, past or present. It downplays the role of religion in the formation of Indian culture. In particular, it bears a hostile attitude towards all Indian religious traditions, Hinduism in particular, vis-à -vis a more conciliatory attitude towards Islam and Christianity. Marxist Historiography perceives itself as a corrective to colonial historiography on India. In reality, Marxist Historians have internalized all the prejudices of colonial historians, and have only added their own. They do not hesitate to politicize the past, to manipulate the present.
In the last few centuries, the European civilization has seen numerous episodes of outrageous acts motivated by religious and political ideologies â Nazi war-crimes, Fascism in Spain and Italy, religious wars between Protestants and Catholics leading to wholesale massacres, and finally, the exploitation of Africans, Asians and Latin Americans by the Imperialist regimes in the age of Colonialism.
With such a background of slaughter and loot, it is not surprising, that conscientious Western intellectuals and academics have a phobia of a revival of such ideologies in their native lands, and in any other part of the world for that matter.
The Marxist and other `progressive' Historians of India manipulate these fears of Western Indologists and intellectuals to further their own political agendas back in India, to curry favor with them, suppress dissenting voices back home or even obtain funding for their own international jaunts. Highly abusive epithets like `Nazis', `Fascists', `fanatics', with which Western academics can relate to very easily, are hurled at their Indian dissenters by these Marxist historians during during their foreign jaunts. These Marxist historians tend to underplay their own political affiliations, agendas and motivations when interacting with westerners, and project themselves as objective, harmless scholars being victimized by `fascists' and `fanatics' back at home in order to gain favor and support in the West. This explains partly the currently strengthening nexus between Western Indology and Indian Communism. The reality however is that Marxist historians have managed to control, appropriate and corner Indian government's patronage for the last 35 years now, stifling dissent (acknowledged even by Ramachandra Guha) and retarding the development of growth and development their own academic discipline.
As a part of this pattern, D. N. Jha has also employed these underhanded techniques to curry favor with his western sponsors and brow-beat his critics back home. In particular, he has been extended cooperation by a Professor at the Harvard University (notorious for his arrogant remarks against India and Indians) and by some westernized researchers of Japan. The preface of the revised edition of 'ancient India' expresses gratitude for Professor Shingo Einoo because he `found time to discuss with me the various aspects of brahminical rituals and their social context'. The same Japanese professor is also thanked for help with Indian texts in Jha's preface to his 'Beef Eating' book, making one wonder why he has to go all the way to Japan for his research, when the basic texts and their scholars are both available within India.
Within India, the Marxist historians, with their professedly anti-Imperialist stance, were expected to counter and to overthrow these biased narratives of India's past. They refuse to take recent discoveries into account, dismissing them as the rants of `part time historians' or `amateurs' and `dilettantes' because it would overturn their own pet theses. They have even branded the entire establishment of Indian archaeologists as `saffronist' â a pejorative term that is used by the elitist English media in India for people they wish to brand as Hindu fanatics. <b>The reason for this animosity of Marxist historians towards archaeologists is very clear. Archaeological discoveries over the last 2 decades or so now compel us to revisit our perceptions of India's past.</b>
An open minded historian, for whom archaeological artifacts constitute one of the major sources of primary data, would have no difficulty in revising his interpretations and present a fresh analysis in conjunction with literary, epigraphic and other sources of historical evidence. However, the historiography of Marxist historians was not always objective and dispassionate. Rather, they have invested a lot of effort in weaving outdated colonial interpretations of India's past, with a Marxist jargon, to present their own `state-of-the-art' analysis. Needless to say, it is not easy now for them to re-weave a dying political ideology with masses of new data emerging every day. This partly explains why they refer to archaeologists and dissenting historians and scholars contemptuously as `revisionists' and `Hindu Talibans' etc.
While most Western Indologists might support Indian Marxist Historians out of an innocent but misplaced fear that India is getting swamped by `Hindu fanatics', the intentions of some of them are not all that innocent. Colonial/Racist prejudices in the presentation of India, its traditions, religions, culture and history still prevail in the mainstream western academia, out of academic inertia, or genuine racism. And as stated above, the Marxist historians have actually emerged as one of the greatest protagonists of the colonial paradigms of Indian history. Therefore there is a convergence of interests between a section of the Western Academia and Indian Marxist Historians. The former co-operate with the latter to perpetuate the dogmas of Western Indology and prove their own `objectivity' to anyone who might accuse them of racism and Orientalism. The Marxists use the western scholars to gain material benefits, emotional support, legitimacy for their own slanted writings, and maintain their hegemony over state institutions and media in India.
Many western Indologists are actually well aware that they are supporting Marxists, who are the followers of a failed political ideology. While some Indologists themselves might have Leftist sympathies, why do the others support Communists and Marxists within India, especially when Communism is not very well tolerated in the Capitalist West? Is their support to an outdated ideology in India akin to the dumping of outdated technologies by the Developed Countries into 3rd world countries?
It is well known how Indologists in the past have actively colluded with, or have provided a scholarly prop to despicable ideologies of Nazism, Colonialism and Racism. Perhaps, an uncritical support to anyone who pretends to be an `opponent of fascism in India' gives these Indologists a good feeling and helps in ameliorating their collective guilt. Perhaps, the Indologists are fighting their own ghosts in their imaginary crusade against the `fascist forces' in India.
While the Marxist historians are playing to the gallery by hurling abuses like `fascists', `fanatics' at their own countrymen, not concerned about basic honesty - moral or academic, one does wonder at the credulity of western Indologists in thinking that they are doing any tangible good to the Indian masses. India is inhabited by one billion people, and I daresay that we are no longer the white man's burden. We can decide and guide our own destiny, and do not need to be warned or coached by ivory tower academics (or their Marxist informers) living thousands of miles away from India.
If we take a macro-view of the entire situation, it will appear that the colonial era has not really ended in `South Asian' Studies. The Marxist Professors and ideologues are new `informants' for the `white man'.
The Waltenshauung of of Marxist historians vis a vis ancient India has been summed up well by SHOURIE [Eminent Historians, 1998, p. x] in the following words -
""They have made India out to have been an empty land â filled by successive invaders. They have made present-day India, and Hinduism even more so, out to be a zoo â an agglomeration of assorted, disparate specimens. No such thing as "India", just a geographical expression, just a construct of the British; no such thing as Hinduism, just a word used by Arabs to describe the assortment they encountered, just an invention of the communalists to impose a uniformity â that has been their stance. For this they have blackened the Hindu period of our history, and as we shall see, strained to whitewash the Islamic period. They have denounced ancient India's social system as the epitomy of oppression, and made totalitarian ideologies out to be egalitarian and just."
****
END OF PART I
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is from <span style='font-family:Impact'>2002</span>
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Herewith, I start a detailed refutation of Jha's historiography, which is being endorsed by Witzel and Doniger. Following is Part I
****
JHA, D. N. 1998. Ancient India, In Historical Outline (2nd edition).
Manohar Publishers and Distributors: New Delhi.
PREFACE:
The Context and the Subtext of Marxist Historiography With a Special Reference to D. N. Jha's "Ancient India in Historical Outline"
A newspaper article ("Holy Cow a Myth? An Indian Finds the Kick is Real", by Emily Eakin, in The New York Times, dt. 17 August 2002), quotes Professor Michael Witzel of the Harvard University in the following words â
"Indeed, until the Bharatiya Janata Party (sic!) came to power, said Michael Witzel, a professor of Sanskrit at Harvard University, much of the history Mr. Jha records was taught in Indian schools."
<b>Witzel's endorsement of the work of a Marxist historian such as D. N. Jha, and his dig at a member of the ruling coalition of India, betrays the former's political agenda, and puts a question mark on the validity and objectivity of all his recent writings on Ancient India. But more fundamentally, it motivates one to examine critically the historiography of Jha, which was substantially the same as what has been taught to students in India all along.</b>
This multi-part review does precisely that. It highlights, chapter by chapter, some of the major flaws in the most popular and influential history text (title at the top) authored by D. N. Jha, all along exposing the political subtext and context of his work.
1. The Marxist Affiliations of D. N. Jha -
Jha is quoted as one of the several 'Marxist Historians' in the entry 'Hinduism' of 'A Dictionary of The Marxist Thought' (Tom Bottomore et al, 1983, Harvard University Press, p. 204). <b>There are numerous other Indian Publications, wherein Jha HIMSELF refers to himself as a Marxist Historian (references can be provided).</b>
Thus, Dwijendra Narayana Jha belongs to a group (or a `cabal' as his critics prefer to say) of historians who are better known as "Eminent Historians". Most of these historians are either Marxists, or their fellow travelers. After the demise of Communism in Soviet Union, it is no longer fashionable to be a Marxist, and so many of them have assumed titles like `progressive historians', `liberal historians' and the like. Conversely, <b>anyone who differs from these historians, is labeled by the Eminent Historians and their supporters in the elitist English media of India as `Hindu fanatics', `Hindu Nazis', `Hindu Talibans' etc.</b>
These Marxist academicians have often succeeded in conveying an impression of their being `objective', `professional', `progressive' historians writing dispassionate history to western researchers. Within India however, their Marxist credentials are well known, and are even acknowledged by the historians themselves, as well as by their supporters.
It is extremely important to expose the Marxist affiliations of Jha, not in order to ostracize or condemn him, but in order to promote an understanding of where his views of Ancient India are coming from. Jha's text on Ancient India is not a dispassionate, `objective' narrative. Rather, it is a Marxist view of our past. This view decries Indian Nationalism, past or present. It downplays the role of religion in the formation of Indian culture. In particular, it bears a hostile attitude towards all Indian religious traditions, Hinduism in particular, vis-à -vis a more conciliatory attitude towards Islam and Christianity. Marxist Historiography perceives itself as a corrective to colonial historiography on India. In reality, Marxist Historians have internalized all the prejudices of colonial historians, and have only added their own. They do not hesitate to politicize the past, to manipulate the present.
In the last few centuries, the European civilization has seen numerous episodes of outrageous acts motivated by religious and political ideologies â Nazi war-crimes, Fascism in Spain and Italy, religious wars between Protestants and Catholics leading to wholesale massacres, and finally, the exploitation of Africans, Asians and Latin Americans by the Imperialist regimes in the age of Colonialism.
With such a background of slaughter and loot, it is not surprising, that conscientious Western intellectuals and academics have a phobia of a revival of such ideologies in their native lands, and in any other part of the world for that matter.
The Marxist and other `progressive' Historians of India manipulate these fears of Western Indologists and intellectuals to further their own political agendas back in India, to curry favor with them, suppress dissenting voices back home or even obtain funding for their own international jaunts. Highly abusive epithets like `Nazis', `Fascists', `fanatics', with which Western academics can relate to very easily, are hurled at their Indian dissenters by these Marxist historians during during their foreign jaunts. These Marxist historians tend to underplay their own political affiliations, agendas and motivations when interacting with westerners, and project themselves as objective, harmless scholars being victimized by `fascists' and `fanatics' back at home in order to gain favor and support in the West. This explains partly the currently strengthening nexus between Western Indology and Indian Communism. The reality however is that Marxist historians have managed to control, appropriate and corner Indian government's patronage for the last 35 years now, stifling dissent (acknowledged even by Ramachandra Guha) and retarding the development of growth and development their own academic discipline.
As a part of this pattern, D. N. Jha has also employed these underhanded techniques to curry favor with his western sponsors and brow-beat his critics back home. In particular, he has been extended cooperation by a Professor at the Harvard University (notorious for his arrogant remarks against India and Indians) and by some westernized researchers of Japan. The preface of the revised edition of 'ancient India' expresses gratitude for Professor Shingo Einoo because he `found time to discuss with me the various aspects of brahminical rituals and their social context'. The same Japanese professor is also thanked for help with Indian texts in Jha's preface to his 'Beef Eating' book, making one wonder why he has to go all the way to Japan for his research, when the basic texts and their scholars are both available within India.
Within India, the Marxist historians, with their professedly anti-Imperialist stance, were expected to counter and to overthrow these biased narratives of India's past. They refuse to take recent discoveries into account, dismissing them as the rants of `part time historians' or `amateurs' and `dilettantes' because it would overturn their own pet theses. They have even branded the entire establishment of Indian archaeologists as `saffronist' â a pejorative term that is used by the elitist English media in India for people they wish to brand as Hindu fanatics. <b>The reason for this animosity of Marxist historians towards archaeologists is very clear. Archaeological discoveries over the last 2 decades or so now compel us to revisit our perceptions of India's past.</b>
An open minded historian, for whom archaeological artifacts constitute one of the major sources of primary data, would have no difficulty in revising his interpretations and present a fresh analysis in conjunction with literary, epigraphic and other sources of historical evidence. However, the historiography of Marxist historians was not always objective and dispassionate. Rather, they have invested a lot of effort in weaving outdated colonial interpretations of India's past, with a Marxist jargon, to present their own `state-of-the-art' analysis. Needless to say, it is not easy now for them to re-weave a dying political ideology with masses of new data emerging every day. This partly explains why they refer to archaeologists and dissenting historians and scholars contemptuously as `revisionists' and `Hindu Talibans' etc.
While most Western Indologists might support Indian Marxist Historians out of an innocent but misplaced fear that India is getting swamped by `Hindu fanatics', the intentions of some of them are not all that innocent. Colonial/Racist prejudices in the presentation of India, its traditions, religions, culture and history still prevail in the mainstream western academia, out of academic inertia, or genuine racism. And as stated above, the Marxist historians have actually emerged as one of the greatest protagonists of the colonial paradigms of Indian history. Therefore there is a convergence of interests between a section of the Western Academia and Indian Marxist Historians. The former co-operate with the latter to perpetuate the dogmas of Western Indology and prove their own `objectivity' to anyone who might accuse them of racism and Orientalism. The Marxists use the western scholars to gain material benefits, emotional support, legitimacy for their own slanted writings, and maintain their hegemony over state institutions and media in India.
Many western Indologists are actually well aware that they are supporting Marxists, who are the followers of a failed political ideology. While some Indologists themselves might have Leftist sympathies, why do the others support Communists and Marxists within India, especially when Communism is not very well tolerated in the Capitalist West? Is their support to an outdated ideology in India akin to the dumping of outdated technologies by the Developed Countries into 3rd world countries?
It is well known how Indologists in the past have actively colluded with, or have provided a scholarly prop to despicable ideologies of Nazism, Colonialism and Racism. Perhaps, an uncritical support to anyone who pretends to be an `opponent of fascism in India' gives these Indologists a good feeling and helps in ameliorating their collective guilt. Perhaps, the Indologists are fighting their own ghosts in their imaginary crusade against the `fascist forces' in India.
While the Marxist historians are playing to the gallery by hurling abuses like `fascists', `fanatics' at their own countrymen, not concerned about basic honesty - moral or academic, one does wonder at the credulity of western Indologists in thinking that they are doing any tangible good to the Indian masses. India is inhabited by one billion people, and I daresay that we are no longer the white man's burden. We can decide and guide our own destiny, and do not need to be warned or coached by ivory tower academics (or their Marxist informers) living thousands of miles away from India.
If we take a macro-view of the entire situation, it will appear that the colonial era has not really ended in `South Asian' Studies. The Marxist Professors and ideologues are new `informants' for the `white man'.
The Waltenshauung of of Marxist historians vis a vis ancient India has been summed up well by SHOURIE [Eminent Historians, 1998, p. x] in the following words -
""They have made India out to have been an empty land â filled by successive invaders. They have made present-day India, and Hinduism even more so, out to be a zoo â an agglomeration of assorted, disparate specimens. No such thing as "India", just a geographical expression, just a construct of the British; no such thing as Hinduism, just a word used by Arabs to describe the assortment they encountered, just an invention of the communalists to impose a uniformity â that has been their stance. For this they have blackened the Hindu period of our history, and as we shall see, strained to whitewash the Islamic period. They have denounced ancient India's social system as the epitomy of oppression, and made totalitarian ideologies out to be egalitarian and just."
****
END OF PART I
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->