Politics Of Indian History -2

[Guest]

Recently, D N Jha lent his support to Witzel and FOSA in California case.



2.0 The `Sanatana' Nature of D N Jha's "Ancient India" –

The back side of the title cover page states that the book was first
published in 1977, and reprinted 9 times till 1997. A Hindi
translation was first published in 1980, and this was reprinted 8
times till 1997. The book was even translated in Chinese in 1984,
when that country was thoroughly Communist.

<b>The translation of Jha's books into various languages is not due to
their intrinsic merit, but due to the hegemony of a coterie of Left-
Liberal propagandists (=historians) over government institutions that
give out research and travel grants, fund translation projects and so
on. </b>Arun Shourie (In "Fabrications on the Way to the Funeral", India
Connect, 26 June 1998) specifically mentions D. N. Jha's name in this
regard:

xQUOTE
"But these are not just partisan "historians". They are nepotists of
the worst kind. I had documented several years ago the doings of some
of them in regard to the appointments in the Aligarh Muslim
University. Their doings in the ICHR have been true to pattern. How
is it that over twenty five years persons from their school alone
have been nominated to the ICHR? How come that Romila Thapar has been
on the Council four times? Irfan Habib five times? Satish Chandra
four times? S. Gopal three times?.... The same goes for the post of
Chairman.
Not only are these "historians" partisan, not only are they
nepotists, they are ones who have used state patronage to help each
other in many, many ways. Let me give two examples, and make four
specific proposals for the Ministry -- that "nodal Ministry",
remember -- which has been their instrument in all these
entrepreneurial ventures.
By a brain-wave a milch-cow was thought up: it is no use having books
only in English, these worthies, dedicated as they were to the cause
of the illiterate downtrodden Indians, argued; we must have the works
of leading historians translated into our regional languages. And
which were the "historians" whose books -- old, in many cases out-of-
date books – got selected for translation? R. S. Sharma: five books.
Romila Thapar: three books. Irfan Habib: two books -- one being a
collection of articles. Bipan Chandra: two books. Muhammad Habib:
three books. D. N. Jha: two books. S. Gopal: four books. Nurul Hasan:
two books.... In a word, the "historians" discovered, I am sure much
to their embarrassment, that they were themselves the leading
historians! All these, but not Professor R. C. Majumdar! Even sundry
leaders of the Communist parties got the honour -- E. M. S.
Namboodripad, P. C. Joshi, even Rajni Palme Dutt, the leader of the
British Communist Party who functioned as the controller and director
of the Indian Communists in the forties. As a result, the books and
pamphlets of these fellows are available in all regional languages,
but the works of even Lokmanya Tilak are not available except in
Marathi! And that too because of the Kesari Trust, no thanks to the
ICHR."
UNQUOTE

The ICHR spend around Rs. 4.1 million in this translation project,
and the authors got paid for the `translation rights'. More important
than the tiny payments involved however was the fact that the
coterie, of which Jha is a member, got a chance to propagate their
ideology using official government machinery.

The first edition of the book was published in 1977. Unfortunately,
this first edition of the book and its translations are now all
outdated, as the author finally brought out a revised, enlarged
second edition in 1998 – i.e., more than two decades after the first
edition was published.

Apparently, despite their frequent digs at the continuity of
the `Sanatana Dharma' (= The Eternal Dharma', a designation used by
Hindus for Hinduism), there is something `Sanatana' about the books
of eminent historians. Which is why these Historians seem to update a
some of them only after decades, if they revise them at all. My
review here ignores the 1977 edition, and is restricted to the 1998
edition, which is already outdated, in my estimation.


3. The 'Secular' Babri Historian -

In the opening chapter, while discussing Nationalist Historiography
in pre-independent India, JHA [p. 23] brings in Hindu communalism
although there is no context for it, and as expected, leaves out
Islamic communalism completely – a classic example of selective
mention and negationism. He says –

xQUOTE
"The pernicious role of the RSS in spreading the virus of communalism
in the body politic of India can hardly be exaggerated. The
assassination of Mahatma Gandhi by RSS- trained Godse on 30 January
1948 and the demolition of the Baburi Masjid at Ayodhya on 6 December
1992 are two important and unforgettable milestones in the unfolding
of the backward-looking Hindu revivalist and fascist politics of
contemporary India."
UNQUOTE

Jha crying foul at the demolition of Baburi Masjid is like pot
calling the kettle black! He was actually one of the four 'Babri
Masjid' historians who openly came out in support of Islamists, and
even represented their case when Prime Minister Chandrashekhar
invited the two disputing parties to present their respective
evidence from historical and archaeological sources in order to
decide whether the contented site belonged to the Muslims or to the
Hindus. The other three Leftists who represented the Islamists were
the Communist Historian Ram Sharan Sharma, Athar Ali and the Leftist
archaeologist named Suraj Bhan.

Commenting on the machinations of Jha and his ilk, Shourie
[in 'Eminent Historians'; 1998, pp. 8-9] writes –
xQUOTE
"They were the intellectual guides and propagandists of the Babri
Masjid Action Committee. They represented it at the meetings Mr.
Chandrashekhar's Government had convened for settling the matter by
evidence. That was an outstanding initiative of Mr. Chandrashekhar:
for such contentious issues ought to be dissolved in the acid of
evidence. These leftist "historians" attended the initial meetings.
They put together for and on behalf of the Committee "documents". It
is a miscellaneous pile. It becomes immediately evident that these
are no counter to the mass of archaeological, historical and literary
evidence which the VHP has furnished, that in fact the "documents"
these guides of the Babri Committee have piled up further
substantiate the VHP's case, these "historians", having undertaken to
attend the meeting to consider the evidence presented by the two
sides, just do not show up!
It is this withdrawal which aborted the initiative that the
Government had undertaken of bringing the two sides together, of
introducing evidence and discourse into the issue. Nothing but
nothing paved the way for the demolition as did this running away by
these "historians". It was the last nail: no one could be persuaded
thereafter that evidence or reason would be allowed anywhere near the
issue.
Not only were these "historians" the advisers of the Babri Masjid
Action Committee, its advocates in the negotiations, they
simultaneously issued all sorts of statements supporting the Babri
Masjid Committee's case – which was the "case" they had themselves
prepared! A well-practiced technique, if I may say so: they are from
a school in which members have made each other famous by reviewing
each others books and "theses"!
Not just that. These very "historians" are cited as witnesses in the
pleadings filed by the Sunni Waqf Board in the courts which are
considering the Ayodhya matter!……
Their deceitful role in Ayodhya -- which in the end harmed their
clients more than anyone else -- was just symptomatic. For fifty
years this bunch has been suppressing facts and inventing lies. How
concerned they are about that objective of the ICHR -- to promote
objective and rational research into events of our past. How does
this square with the guidelines issued by their West Bengal
Government in 1989 which Outlook itself quotes -- "Muslim rule should
never attract any criticism. Destruction of temples by Muslim rulers
and invaders should not be mentioned"? But their wholesale
fabrications of the destruction of Buddhist vihars, about the non-
existent "Aryan invasion" -- to question these is to be communal,
chauvinist!"
UNQUOTE

The destruction of the Babri Masjid plunged the nation into Hindu-
Muslim rioting which left over 2000 people dead. In the years
preceding the demolition, Jha and his fellow comrades had been
propagating from every medium under their influence, that the Hindu
stance, that the site marked an ancient temple that was demolished to
pave way for the mosque, was historically untenable. The meeting
called by the then Indian Prime Minister, Mr. Chandrashekhar, offered
a unique window of opportunity to these `historians' to demonstrate
the veracity of their claim, from the perspective of history.
Considering that these historians had claimed omniscience so far with
regard to the history and archaeology of the site in dispute, it was
therefore shocking that they reneged on their duty. All along, they
had falsely buoyed the Muslim side that its claim to the site was
historically correct, for the Muslim leaders were themselves
incompetent to argue their own case in an academically sound manner.
And now, suddenly, Jha and his ilk pulled the rug from beneath their
feet. The entire exercise also convinced a section of the Hindu
community that these political propagandists masquerading as
historians cannot ever be relied upon for a fair, equitable solution
to the problem. The inevitable happened, and the mosque was
demolished by a mob of charged up Hindus. When the incidents of
November 1992 – January 1993 are viewed in this manner, Jha and his
comrades are clearly responsible to a great extent for the mayhem
that lead to the destruction of the mosque and also the communal
rioting thereafter. And yet, Jha has the gall to blame others for it!

In fact, even 10 years later, he still maintains that same unethical,
dogmatic stance about the whole affair. An announcement was made on
the Liverpool Indology list about the on-line availability of the
document submitted by the VHP to the Indian Prime Minister in support
of their view that the Babri Masjid was constructed after demolishing
a pre-existing temple. Jha responded to that announcement by saying,
in the August company of Indologists around the world, that the
webpage containing the document was infected with "communal viruses"!

I would like to point out here that with the demolition of the
mosque, and recovery of tell tale fragments of an ancient Vaishnavite
temple from beneath the rubble of the mosque (including an
inscription mentioning its Ramaite affiliations) and from within its
walls, the controversy is closed.

Not surprisingly, the same historians who alleged that the other
scholars who disagreed with them were abusing history politically,
have now suddenly gone 'philosophical'. They no longer discuss the
academic aspects of the controversy, and confine themselves to giving
politically loaded sermons. Jha is also one of them.

The hypocricy of the Eminent Babri Historians in the entire
controversy has prompted even a neutral archaeologist like Dilip
CHAKRABARTI [Colonial Indology; 1997:21-22] to complain –

xQUOTE
"A controversy certainly erupted about the presence or absence of a
Hindu temple below the level of the mosque at the site in Ayodhya.
Those historians and archaeologists who were unwilling to let go this
opportunity to add to their `secular and progressive' image used the
occasion fully to harangue us on how to interpret archaeological
remains. The fact that the same set of historians and archaeologists
have, to our knowledge, been always silent about, or ignorant of, the
destruction of hundreds of archaeological sites and monuments all
over the country only adds to the piquancy to the whole issue. That
the same bunch of `mainstream historians', some of whom were
reputedly inducted in the Indian committee for the organization of
the World Archaeological Congress-3, stood in the way of developing
science-based archaeological research in the universities they serve
(or served) makes any attempt on their part to speak of archaeology
dowbright sordid and sleazy."
UNQUOTE

A review of 'Colonial Indology' in the Italian Journal 'East and
West' concurs with the above assessment.

Jha's characterization of the destruction of Babri Masjid as one
of "two important and unforgettable milestones in the unfolding of
the backward-looking Hindu revivalist and fascist politics of
contemporary India" begs the question - 'What would one call the
preceding destruction, damage and desecration of more than 50 Hindu
temples in Kashmir then? One can almost hear this Babri historian
give the following reply -

"Do not even dare to compare the destruction of Babri Masjid with the
alleged demolition of thousands of temples in the world by Muslims.
Do not even mention the alleged ethnic cleansing of Hindus from Kabul
to Srinagar, or the alleged marginalization of Hindus in Christian
Meghalaya or the alleged ethnic cleansing of Hindus from Christian
Mizoram or the alleged killings of Hindu priests by church backed
terrorists in Tripura or the bomb blasts at Churches by the Islamic
Deendar Anjuman. All these were caused by Hindu cunning, and none of
these events is more heinous than the destruction of the Babri
Masjid. The murder of Graham Staines is a close second. All other
crimes in India are not even a distant third. Besides, don't you know
that you could promote Hindu communalism and fascism by even
mentioning the alleged destruction of temples at Kashmir? Knowing
this, if you protest against the alleged destruction of temples or
the alleged killings of Hindus anywhere and anytime, you become a de-
facto dirty Hindu fascist and Hindu Talibans, and we can charge you
with carrying out with public amputations, of subjugating women, of
abetting international terrorism, of sheltering Osama like terrorists
and of carrying out airplane hijackings. In any case, all Hindu
organizations are Talibans of India. They are all Fascists.
You really cannot compare the destruction of the great Babri with the
alleged destruction of countless temples in the world. Why? First,
and most important, Babri is Babri. Its destruction cannot be
compared to the alleged destruction of any temple. Secondarily, there
could be economic or political motives at work in the alleged
destruction of temples, as shown by Western academic Richard Eaton on
our party organ (`Frontline') whereas, the demolition of Babri Masjid
was clearly the handiwork of fascists, fanatics, anti-Dalit, anti-
Minority, revanchist, totalitarian, majoritarian, khakhi
knickerwallas. In any case, we reiterate again that any attempts to
highlight the excess of Islamists without taking into account the
larger secular picture is only promoting Hindutva fascism and lands
the critic into the camp of fascists."