Politics Of Indian History -2

[Guest]

x-posting Bharatvarsh's post from other thread:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Fitzgerald: Why a jihad in Jammu-Kashmir?

Why do Muslim terrorists attack in Jammu-Kashmir? Because they can. The Muslim claim to Kashmir differs from their claim to all of India (or for that matter to Spain (Al-Andalus), to Israel, to Sicily, to the Balkans, to Bulgaria, to Rumania, to Hungary, and to all the areas once dominated by Muslims) only in the ability to push that claim. Of course, in the jihadist view the entire world in the end must submit to Islam and be dominated by Islam -- though non-Muslims may, should they accept what many Muslims continue to believe is perfectly just, live under those unambiguous conditions of humiliation, degradation, and physical insecurity whose sum is the status we now describe as "dhimmitude".

Any land area, even within the Western countries where Muslims come to dominate, will by many of them be regarded as "Muslim land." The claims made by various local Muslims may seem comical to us, such as that for the "Caliphate" in Cologne, or the insistence that certain areas in Malmo or Rotterdam or Muslim-populated towns in France are not to be treated as any longer under the control of representatives of the Infidel nation-state, but they are quite serious. That seriousness is being demonstrated even now both by Muslims and by the representatives (police, firemen, teachers) of that nation-state, who are often too afraid not to comply with the Muslim demands that they stay out of what is no longer their territory.

Jammu-Kashmir is part of India. It is not part of Pakistan. And the notion that any part of India in which there is to be found a Muslim-majority population is one where therefore Muslim claims have legitimacy is absurd. For what would follow, logically, would be a turning of all sorts of places within India into little Muslim-ruled areas. And given that the Muslim rate of population growth is always higher, in India and elsewhere, then the non-Muslim population, and given that Muslims have not hesitated to push out large numbers of non-Muslims (think of the 400,000 Kashmiri Pandits forced to flee when threatened with death), either one takes a firm stand and rejects Muslim demands or, by even hinting at "negotiating," one emboldens the mujahedin. The Israelis have done the latter, to their own sorrow. In failing to make their own case, they have also failed to help Infidels in Europe understand that the siege against Israel, that Lesser Jihad, is hardly the only, or even the most important, of the local Jihads now being waged. And it will continue to be waged, using all the instruments now available, unless met with well-informed, implacable, and relentless opposition.

India should not be "negotiating" over Jammu-Kashmir. There is no possibility of such a negotiation satisfying Muslims permanently. Since India now possesses this part of Kashmir (Pakistan also controls part), any negotiation will only lead to further Indian concessions, possibly even the surrender of land. What Pakistan would offer -- a grand agreement to cease support for cross-border terrorism -- is no concession at all. Pakistan cannot offer up as a concession what it has a moral and legal duty to do anyway.

And the same is true elsewhere in the world. One suspects that the outside world will be unsympathetic to the Indians unless and until they all begin, at the same time, to talk about the belief-system of Islam, and why concessions here and there make no sense, given the ultimate unappeasable demands that Muslims must, if they are to be true Muslims, continue to make on all Infidels.

Doesn't it make more sense for Infidels everywhere to recognize this and to discuss it openly? This would force Muslims to discuss their own ideology, and be embarrassed or chagrined by such discussion, so that not only will Infidels start supporting each other in their local conflicts, but so that some Muslims will have to cease the taqiyya-and-tu-quoque, and begin to admit that something in Islam, a good deal in Islam, must change if it is not to make Muslims permanently immiscible and un-integrable and regarded with permanent suspicion and hostility by Infidels everywhere.

Hindu civilization in Jammu-Kashmir should be defended. It is a pity that so many in India among those who are called, quite loosely and often quite comically, "intellectuals" -- all shy away from anything that might conceivably be taken as a defense of Hindu (or Sikh) civilization, or culture. Above all, no thoroughly modern Indian will dare suggest that Islam has done great damage to Jammu and Kasmir, as well as to India as a whole, and to Indian civilization. No, there are exceptions -- such as that cosmopolitan of Indian descent, V. S. Naipaul, who is not afraid of anyone. There are Indian-Americans (Hindu, Sikh, and even disaffected ex-Muslims) and their counterparts in Great Britain, who also know how silly it is not to make the case, to ignore history, or to shy away from the slightest hint of Hindutva, which is often mocked. Why, exactly? Is K. S. Lal to be mocked for "The Legacy of Muslim Rule in India"? Is Sir Jahundath Sarkar? Are all the other Hindu historians of India who have been unafraid to discuss what Muslim rule did to India?

Those of us who are not Indian should find out a good deal more about what happened on the subcontinent, and cease to so readily accept the "advanced" view which holds that anything smacking of "communalism" (a word used to indicate, of course, those who wish to show their sympathetic interest in, and identification with, Hindu India, and who refuse to play the game of sanitizing the history of Muslim rule) is ipso facto evil.

One hopes that those in the Western world who are articulate and aware, and of Indian (Hindu or Sikh descent, primarily) will help to educate others -- but that can only be done once one has educated oneself. Lal and Sarkar should be household words. The two volumes in which Sita Ram Goel simply lists tens of thousands of Hindu sites destroyed should be better known. Those Indians who become internationally famous, and always -- as a matter of course -- are quick to demonstrate that they have absolutely <span style='color:red'>nothing to do with "communalism" (i.e., Hindu causes, Hindu history, Hindu interests) -- one thinks here of Amartya Sen -- would do better to study their own history, and not to assume that intelligent Hindus and Sikhs who show a bit of that supposedly terrible "communalism" must be wrong. They aren't. </span>

But it is difficult for them to make their voices heard, given the received ideas, and cliches, of the day -- both those concerning Jammu-Kashmir, and those concerning the Jihad in general.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/011221.php<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well it seems some Americans are more aware of things more than many moron Hindus are.

-- Well said sir <!--emo&:rocker--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/rocker.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='rocker.gif' /><!--endemo-->

[ramana]

From Deccan Chronicle, 30 May 2006. Op-Ed
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The histories of India
By H.Y. Sharada Prasad

<b>History has many uses. First and foremost, it is considered a basic tool of nation-building. Every nation tends to think it has made a unique contribution to human civilisation and would like to impress it on the citizens from their earliest years. Hence the animated controversies that take place over textbooks of history. </b>

For a long time, persons in sympathy with the ideology of the Bharatiya Janata Party had a complaint against the government. They felt that leftists were allowed too much of a say in the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) which draws up the curriculum and prepares the model text-books for our school system. <b>The result, according to them, was that a Marxist (hence non-Indian) interpretation of history was injected into the minds of our children from their earliest years; also that the writers spent too much time on minor controversies, such as whether the Vedic Aryans were beef-eaters or not.</b> So when the BJP came to power, out went the left-tainted books and in came books with an acceptable lotus tint.

When the BJP was voted out and the reins of office were again in Congress hands, <b>one of the first things that the new government did was to announce that panels of authors had been appointed to draw up new text-books that would take the place of the lotus series.</b> Three or four weeks ago I saw a large advertisement announcing that a whole lot of books for schools had been prepared and were up for sale. I have been reading them with some alacrity.<b> I want to share with readers my first impressions of some of them. </b>

The curriculum lists history and geography as part of social science. <b>The child begins studying them in Class VI, that is, when he is 12 years old. The mind of a 12-year-old isn’t a tiny clean slate, like the mind of a six-year-old.</b> He would have overheard the conversation among his adults, or himself formed part of the slogan-shouting brigades of urchins supporting a particular party or candidate. He would also have been an avid watcher of television. He would have read several books of Amar Chitra Kahaniyan, along with Asterix. <b>In other words, a sizable number of cultural concepts and constructs would have taken root in his young mind.</b>

That being so, it would be wrong to imagine that a textbook read at the age of 12 will become the normative influence in a young person. In the hands of an inspired teacher, it might do so, provided that the book itself is the work of a genius. Ishvar Chandra Vidyasagar’s primers in Bengali, Vallathol’s in Malayalam, and Shivarama Karanth’s in Kannada were examples of such books. But Karanth’s books were removed on the ground that he was not a trained pedagogue and that he lacked even a university degree.

<b>There are quite a few plus points about the new textbook in history for Class VI. It is neatly printed and copiously illustrated in pleasing colour schemes. The very title of the book is unexpectedly different — not A History of India for Beginners but Our Pasts.</b>

<b>The use of the plural suggests that we have many pasts and should not demand or imagine that there need be a single version of what happened. The authors provide a good answer to the question why we need to bother about pasts that have gone by: “The society we live in has been fashioned by those who came before us… When we study history we begin to see how these changes happened… History is not only about political events. It is about everything that happens in society.” </b>

The book consists of 12 chapters. <b>Their titles are given here as they vividly bring out the way in which the authors have gone about their work:</b> 1) What, where, how and when?; 2) On the trail of the earliest people; 3) From gathering to growing food; 4) In the earliest cities; 5) What books and burials tell us; 6) Kingdoms, kings and an early republic; 7) New questions and ideas; 8) Ashoka, the Emperor who gave up war; 9) Vital villages, thriving towns; 10) Traders, kings and pilgrims; 11) New empires and kingdoms; 12) Buildings, paintings and books.

<b>For years, the Aryans have posed a great problem for writers on Indian history. </b>Did they come from outside? Who were the original inhabitants? <b>The present authors have dealt with it in an ingenious way, that is, by totally ignoring their existence. The fifth chapter, which speaks about the Vedas, goes on to say: “The people who composed the hymns described themselves as Aryas and called their opponents Dasas or Dasyus. These were people who did not perform sacrifices and probably spoke different languages.” It is to be seen whether this will satisfy the old disputants.</b>

If Our Pasts is unorthodox in its treatment of the Aryans, it is equally unorthodox in its treatment of the epics. <b>The first two Indian epics it mentions are not the Ramayana and the Mahabharata, but the Tamil works Silappadikaram and Manimekalai. </b>

The authors trace the origin of the Bhakti movement to the<b> Bhagavad Gita, “the sacred book of the Hindus, which is included in the Mahabharata. In this Krishna the God asks Arjuna his devotee and friend, to abandon all dharmas and take refuge in him, as only he can set Arjuna free from every evil.”</b> One can foresee that several schoolmasters will feel uncomfortable with this interpretation of the Gita.

A couple of little known facts brought out by the book are the existence of ostriches in India during the Paleolithic period, and the fact that there is only one mention of the river Ganga in the entire Vedic hymns.

The book would have gained if greater care had been devoted to the editing of the manuscript. We have too many awkward passages like:

l “When people die, their relatives and friends generally pay respect to them. People look after them, perhaps in the belief that there is some form of life after death. Burial is one such arrangement.” l “Not everybody could have been a specialist. We do not know whether only men were specialists or only women were specialists. Perhaps some women and men may have been specialists.”

l “Archeologists have found seeds of wheat, barley, rice, pulses, millets, peas, and sesame. Bones of a number of animals, many bearing cut marks that show they may have been used have also been found. These include cattle, buffalo, goat, sheep, dog, horse, ass, pig, sambhar, spotted deer, black buck, antelope, hare, and mongoose, besides birds, crocodile, turtle, crab, and fish.”

l “According to this system of belief (Bhakti), if a devotee worships the chosen deity with a pure heart, the deity will appear in the form in which he or she may desire. So, the deity could be thought of as a human being, lion, tree, or any other form. Once this idea gained acceptance, artists made beautiful images of these deities.”

<b>The companion book on geography for Class VI, The Earth Our Habitat, I am sorry to report, is even more carelessly written. </b>Take, for example, this paragraph about the weather on page 56:

“For example, as such it may be hot or cold; sunny or cloudy; windy or calm. You must have noticed that when it is hot continued for several days you don’t need any warm clothing. You also like to eat or drink cold things. In contrast there are days together, you feel cold without woollen clothes when it is very windy and chilly, you would like to have something hot to eat.”

<b>H.Y. Sharada Prasad was adviser to Prime Ministers Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi</b>

<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Distortion of History in Indian School Textbooks

http://www.petitiononline.com/ncert/petition.html<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Fight is against a concocted history of India</b>
By Subramanian Swamy

When Ron Watts, a Christian missionary from USA was ordered to leave the country by the Madras High Court based on a report submitted by the Dharmapuri TN District Magistrate—highlighting on his unacceptable and nefarious activities, Watts landed up in New Delhi and went straight to meet Smt Sonia Gandhi. He then flaunted his photograph with her to all and sundry.

They propagated that we are a nation created by invading foreigners, divided by tiers of assimilation such as Aryans, Dravidians, Scthyians, Mongols etc.. A community which loses it’s self-esteem and respect for it’s past achievements on imposed ignorance is always a sitting duck for conversion to another faith.
Ever since Smt Sonia Gandhi entered Indian political arena, the foreign Christian missionaries have become emboldened to strut around the country rubbishing Hindu icons and even flouting Indian laws. In this matter, demeaning of the Hindu religion, there is a parallel activity of Islamic terrorism today, but that activity is not in tandem with the Christian missionary game plan.

Our concern here, however, is with the long-term clash of Hindu religion, culture and civilisation with the Christian onslaught through foreign missionaries following the termination of the clash of civilisations.

The clash of civilisation with Islamic terrorism is a medium term conflict that will be decisively won by anti-terrorist coalition including the US, Israel and India, with passive support from China and Russia, and especially once the substitute for crude oil extraction, viz. the hydrogen fuel cell technology, becomes commercially viable.

Thereafter, the Vatican and it’s storm troopers, the Opus Dei, will go “hell bent” to launch on a major conversion drive, to enlarge Christian faith the world over, and in Asia, in particular. The Vatican today is alarmed at the rapidly declining adherence to Christianity in Europe, and hence is in search for unsuspecting populations the world over to convert to Christianity. India is an obvious place.

In this activity, Smt Sonia Gandhi if positioned in government even then, will be the patron “saint”. Even today, she is lending a helping hand to dubious foreign Christian missionaries to pursue unhampered their activities in India.

When Ron Watts, a Christian missionary from USA was ordered to leave the country by the Madras High Court based on a report submitted by the Dharmapuri TN District Magistrate , highlighting on his unacceptable and nefarious activities, Watts landed up in New Delhi and went straight to meet Smt Sonia Gandhi. He then flaunted his photograph with her to all and sundry. Very soon, thereafter, the Dharmapuri DM changed his stand in court, and the Madras High Court order was reversed. Ron Watts was allowed to stay.

Similarly, another dubious foreign Christian preacher from Palestine (domiciled in US), Benny Hinn, came to Bangalore to hold a public congregation. He was given State honours by the then Congress government in Karnataka, allowed to hold his gathering in the restricted area of the Indian Airforce grounds, with the entire Cabinet led by the Chief Minister seated on the chairs before the dias, to seek his blessings. Hinn’s miracle cures of the terminally sick has been now exposed as a fraud by the Bangalore Police in leaks to the media. But Hinn remained unfazed, and concluded his congregation with a public declaration of gratitude to Sonia Gandhi for his state honours and facility.

Foreign Christians have already a plan of action to convert Hindus to their religion. One is Operation Joshua exposed by the Tehelka weekly. This operation is based on a detailed mapping of the Indian population according to the postal PIN code. The other is the gathering of all Christian organisations working abroad that took place in Dallas, Texas, USA on September 19, 2005. On that occasion it was resolved to convert 100 million Hindus within 10 years—cost being no constraint. Any one wanting to build a Rs. 10 crore Church building in a rural area of India, for example, has just to ask.

So how should Hindus respond to this challenge and the implicit clash of religions?

I have already indicated in my earlier columns this clash will be not a hot one, but a cold war of a clash of propaganda and subversion. Hindus have already been through one round of this clash in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries when Christian missionaries backed by the Imperial occupying power, mutilated our history books and demeaned our civilisational achievements so that Hindus would lose their already diminished self-esteem—diminished earlier by the atrocities of the rapacious Islamic hordes. They propagated that we are a nation created by invading foreigners, divided by tiers of assimilation such as Aryans, Dravidians, Scthyians, Mongols etc. A community which loses it’s self-esteem and respect for it’s past achievements on imposed ignorance is always a sitting duck for conversion to another faith.

But Hindus survived this onslaught because of preachings of divine sanyasis such as Swami Vivekananda, Maharshi Aurobindo, Swami Dayananda Saraswati and Kanchi Shankaracharya Sri Chandrashekharendra Saraswati. Not more than two per cent of Hindus converted to Christianity despite having been oppressed and enslaved by Imperial Christian power for over a century. Hindus became poor, but for a few, they refused to convert.

Hindus can combat the coming clash of religions by a combination of developing a new mindset of virat Hindutva and by building an armoury of counter arguments to undermine the theological self-assurance of the foreign missionaries. This latter strategy is classic and vintage Hinduism, known as shasthrarthas, by which Hindus won over persons of other religious persuasion by arguments and debate.

We should, therefore, now prepare this armoury of counter arguments for fighting the coming clash of religions.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->http://www.organiser.org/dynamic/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=137&page=24

NCERT forced to replace 37 objectionable passages in history textbooks

In its response to the petition filed by Shri Dinanath Batra and others of Shiksha Bachao Andolan Samiti before the Delhi High Court, the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) has clarified in  the court that out of the total 70 objectionable passages, mentioned by the petitioner in his petition, 37 have been replaced in accordance with  the new curricula. The counsel said the discussion over the deletion or modification of four other passages was going on. He however added that no change was required in respect of the other 29 passages. The court has directed the NCERT to identity the 37 replaced passages in an affidavit. Next hearing of the case will be held on July 26.

This development followed the comments of a three-member committee comprising professors of history, J.S. Grewal, K.N. Panikar and  Nayanjyot Lahiri. While these experts have upheld views in respect to certain historical precedents, they have not shied away from doing away with  certain portions. For example, on the objection raised over a paragraph  mentioning beef eating in a class VI history textbook Ancient India, authored by  Romila Thapar, the experts have upheld the practice of beef eating to be widely prevalent in early India.

In response to another objection raised over the 'homeland of Aryans'  raised in a textbook, authored by R.S. Sharma, the experts are of the view  that the homeland of the Aryans was a very 'vexed question'. "Considering that  this is a highly politicised and controversial question, it would be  desirable for textbooks to make this evident," the committee noted. Of certain passages that shall face deletion, one of the paragraph figures in  class XII textbook, Modern India by Bipan Chandra. In a reference to Maharaja  Ranjit Singh, it was mentioned in one of the paragraphs, "While a devout Sikh, he (Ranjit Singh) was known to step down from his throne to wipe out the dust of Muslim mendicants with his long gray beard." Following a note by NCERT, this quotation shall now be deleted from the 2006 edition.
==================

Home > 2006 Issues > July 02, 2006

Organiser Special Report

Save Education, Save India

THE POLITICS AND CONSPIRACY BEHIND UPA'S DISTORTED EDUCATION POLICY
Lies as facts, bias as comments and left ideology as academic toxin
EXPOSING THE PLOY TO MISLEAD YOUNG INDIA
By Dr J.S. Rajput

Even the universally respected and honoured academics and scholars were not spared. The first and the most prioritised innovation was thus beingimplemented as if the victimisation of individuals and demoralisation of institutions were the only priorities before the education system of India.

Never before, education in India was put to such political siege as  during the last two years. The ruling combine of the political parties diametrically opposed to each other emerged on the basis of the eternal political principle of 'power at any cost'. Those out of power for  nearly six years were impatient and had only one goal before them: to return  back to the coveted positions and towards that end, were willing to  sacrifice not only the professed principles but even their self-esteem. The entire  nation now watches how the stalwarts of the 'support from outside' arm-twist the present alliance in power practically on daily basis. Education and  culture stand totally surrendered to the select group of ideologically trusted academics who follow the 'party line'.

Revert back to May-June 2004. It appeared that educational institutions  were managed 'only' by undesirable elements that had spoiled all the 'progressive' accomplishments of the earlier 50 years when only  'saintly' individuals were at the helm of the affairs and consequently, for all  those years the entire education system was under the control of right-minded (like-minded) luminaries. There were pronounced declarations that  actions and enquiries shall be instituted against the guilty and the system  shall be cleansed up without delay. True to the promises made, enquiries were instituted regularly. Several of the retired yet committed bureaucrats  were fruitfully and gainfully re-employed to save (serve) the nation once  again. Some of them are functioning even now, practically on a regular basis.  There is no dearth of more enquiries. If one enquiry did not result in the  desired outcome, another and more followed it. It generated a climate of demoralisation and apprehensions in the institutions. On the other  side, several of the top-level functionaries were seen running helter-skelter to establish new 'loyalties'. Most of them were successful and were duly rewarded through continuation, extension and other rewards. For the  first time, change of government really 'stirred' the system, as vendetta was visible all around. Governing bodies and other committees of autonomous institutions were sacked without any reason and rhyme. Even the  universally respected and honoured academics and scholars were not spared. The  first and the most prioritised innovation was thus being implemented as if the victimisation of individuals and demoralisation of institutions were  the only priorities before the education system of India.

There was more to the political agenda. Secularism comes handy to most  of the Indian politicians in their political machinations and manoeuvres. The earlier government was headed by a political party, which was voted to power by the people but remains an anathema to the 'secularist' (not to be confused with secular individuals) and helps them to stick together. No matter whether the previous government had really given desired  priority to educational reforms or not, they attacked all the changes of their predecessor government as communal and anti-secular. An entirely new  meaning was accorded to the terms saffron and toxification. The frequency of  the usage of the terms like 'de-saffronisation', 'de-toxification' and even 'de-talibanisatin' shot up exponentially for a couple of months. It  came down after the common people started asking questions: "What was  toxified or saffronised and by whom?" The query remains unanswered.

Yours truly was targeted for the curricular changes in school education and the preparation of the new generation of textbooks. Personally I am yet to discover what could be termed injurious to the next generations of theIndians in the textbooks prepared during the period concerned. Yes, the monopoly of the 'established' writers of textbooks, particularly history textbooks was broken and for this, I received no instructions from any one. As the head of the national institution mandated to update the curricula at regular intervals, I led a team of dedicated academics from within the organisation and with outside inputs to initiate and complete the process. The protests should have come to an end after the Supreme Court of India, in its judgment delivered on September 12, 2002, fully endorsed therecommendations contained in the National Curriculum Framework for School Eucation-2000. Without increasing the price of the textbooks, the sales increased from about 44 crore per year to over 165 crore in three years. To me this was one of the modes of assessing the national acceptance of the initiative. Combined with the Supreme Court verdict, it constitutes the best of rewards one can hope for in his professional career.

I assert the above based on my lectures, tours and other widespread interactions throughout the country during the last two years. In addition, I have regularly expressed my views in media. Tremendous support comes from all the sections of the society for two major aspects that are invariably dealt with in these lectures and media contributions. The first, educational endeavour, its content, process and pedagogy must strive hard to inculcate the values of truth, peace, non-violence, righteous conduct and love. The other: basics of all the religions of the people of India must be made known to children. They must know the commonalities and also learn to respect differences wherever these exist. All religions must be treated on equal footing and towards this end, teachers need to be specifically prepared. What is needed is education about the basics of all the regions and not religious education in schools.' Both of these were put forward only as a reiteration of the recommendations of the Chavan Committee Report on Value
Education submitted to the both Houses of the Parliament of India in February 1999.

Indian State is secular but the Indian society is religious and traditionally secular. The game plan carried out under the garb of 'danger to secularism' is fast losing its relevance. People in general and also teachers and other professionals and enlightened individuals are asking each other: "Who is communal? Those who unhesitatingly exploit religion and caste for political purposes or those who wish to strive for social cohesion and religious harmony?" The projected achievements of the Ministry of Human Resources Development as perceived by the masses is limited to the flair for minorityism and the recent outburst of energy to implement the OBC's quota in 'one go'! Often, I feel grateful to the MHRD for having created
conditions, one after another, which have made people sit up and question the 'hidden agenda'. It, however, is now the most known secret of the current times: Education for Vote, Vote and Vote! Education in India now faces a disastrous syndrome under the cover of de-saffro-nisation, de-toxification, minorityism and finally, casteism, which appear to be the most 'productive' of the ingredients towards educational progress of India! Thankfully, people now understand the 'game plan' and are ready to contribute their might to redress the situation. This certainly is one positive achievement in education, resulting out of sincere efforts of the concerned citizens and organisation to generate public awareness and place the real facts before them.

I accept my role and responsibility for all that was subsequently projected as saffronisation and toxification of education. I am confident that some day, the views contained in the Supreme Court verdict shall find currency and Indian education system shall be upgrading itself in quality and credibility, with the support of academics and scholars, away from the clutches of political aberrations.
<b>(The author is former director, NCERT.)</b><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Textbooks that disparage the Indian heritage
By Dr Maheep Singh
"We are told that Aurangzeb was annoyed because the Guru had converted a few Muslims to Sikhism." Who told this story to Satish Chandra? He has not given the source of his information. Historians like Sir Jadunath Sarkar, Dr Indu Bhushan Banerjee, Dr Hari Ram Gupta or Dr Ganda Singh have not mentioned that Guru Tegh Bahadur had converted some Muslims to Sikhism.

It is unfortunate that the History textbook prepared by NCERT for the students of class XI written by Prof Satish Chandra is full of distortions and wrong statements. In the previous edition of Medieval India, prescribed for class XI, Shri Chandra, referring to the martyrdom of Guru Tegh Bahadur quoting some Persian source, had written that after his return from Assam, the Guru in association with one Hafiz Adam, a follower of Shiekh Ahmed Sirhandi, had resorted to plunder and rapine laying waste the whole province of the Punjab.

There was a lot of protest from the historians, well conversant with the Sikh history against this statement. Dr Hari Ram Gupta in his book, History of the Sikhs (Part-1) has written on page 205 that Sayyed Ghulam Hussain of Lucknow wrote in his Persian book in 1782 that Guru Tegh Bahadur and Hafiz Adam, a disciple of Shiekh Ahmed Sirhandi, had collected a large body of men. They moved about in countryside and seized money and material by force. Prof. Satish Chandra based his statement on this source, which was written more than one hundred years after the martyrdom of Guru Tegh Bahadur totally ignoring the contemporary evidence.


Moreover, Hafiz Adam was banished by Shahjahan in 1642—33 years earlier. Hafiz went on pilgrimage to Mecca and Madina where he died in 1643. How could Guru Tegh Bahadur join hands with such a person? With such superfluous knowledge of history, Satish Chandra not only belittled the martyrdom of Guru Tegh Bahadur, but also showed his bias for Sikhs and their history.

After that Satish Chandra modified his writing a little, keeping his bias and frivolousness. In the edition of 2005 (Page 297-299) of the same book, he say, "We are told that Aurangzeb was annoyed because the Guru had converted a few Muslims to Sikhism."

Who told this story to Satish Chandra? He has not given the source of his information. Historians like Sir Jadunath Sarkar, Dr Indu Bhushan Banerjee, Dr Hari Ram Gupta or Dr Ganda Singh have not mentioned that Guru Tegh Bahadur had converted some Muslims to Sikhism. Secondly, he fully denies the historical fact that there was a large-scale religious persecution of Hindu Pandits in Kashmir under the governorship of Iftekhar Khan. In his previous version he fully refuted the fact that Kashmir Pandits visited Guru Tegh Bahadur at Anandpur and gave him the details of the situation in their state. Changing his previous view Satish Chandra in the new version of the book states, "However, there is evidence to show that the Guru received a delegation of Brahmins from Kashmir and promised to support them."

It is strange that Prof. Chandra always tries to save Aurangzeb, for his policy of religious persecution. In the case of the martyrdom of Guru Tegh Bahadur, he does not accept the truth of holding Aurangzeb responsible for it. The great historian Sir Jadunath Sarkar has clearly mentioned this fact in his famous book, History of Aurangzeb (Page 313) in following words, "He (Guru Tegh Bahadur) encouraged the resistance of the Hindus of Kashmir to forcible conversion to Islam and openly defied the Emperor. Taken to Delhi he was cast in prison and called upon to embrace Islam and on his refusal was tortured for five days and then beheaded on warrant from the Emperor."

Dr Indu Bhushan Banerjee in his book, Evolution of Khalsa (part 2, page 60-61) has said that it was a self-sought martyrdom for the cause of protecting Kashmiri Pandits from the religious persecution.


The references given in the NCERT book regarding Guru Gobind Singh are not only misleading but also show the utter lack of knowledge and perspective of the Sikh history.

There is no doubt that after facing the attack of the joint forces of hills—Rajas and Mughals—for several months the Guru decided to leave the fort of Anandpur. The commanders of Mughal forces were regularly sending messages to the Guru that if he left the fort, no harm would be done to him. Guru Gobind Singh left the fort with his family and a few hundred Sikhs. The Guru's convoy had hardly covered a few miles, when Mughal and allied forces, forgetting their promises, attacked the Guru. The saga of the battle of Chapkam is well known. While crossing the swollen river Sirsa, the Guru got separated from his family. His two elder sons, Ajit Singh and Johar Singh separated from his family. They died fighting the enemy. Two younger sons, Jorawar Singh and Fateh Singh were captured by the Subedar of Sirhand and on their refusal to embrace Islam, were bricked alive at Sirhand.

It is also not historically correct that while the Guru was staying at Talwandi, he was not disturbed. In this period Guru Gobind Singh fought his last battle with Mughal forces at the field of Khidrana (now known as Muktasar) where enemy forces were badly beaten.

As I have mentioned earlier, Satish Chandra is very kind to Aurangzeb (equally unkind to Sikh history). In the latest edition of Medieval India, he says, "It is doubtful whether the dastardly action of Wazir Khan against the sons of the Guru was carried out at the instance of Aurangzeb." Why this is doubtful? Guru Gobind Singh himself had blamed Aurangzeb for the killing of his four sons in his letter written to him while he was in Deccan.

The problem with Satish Chandra is that he totally lacks historical perspective and always bases his statements on hearsay. His arguments start with the phrases like, "it is doubtful", "according to some", "We are told", etc. Such phrases are not used in writing the history. The history is written on the basis of credible evidences. The absurdity of the notions of Prof. Satish Chandra is proved by the statement made by him in the book when he writes, "According to some, he (the Guru) had hoped to persuade Aurangzeb to restore Anandpur to him."

No historian has mentioned such a thing. If Satish Chandra had read the full text of Zafarnama, the letter written by Guru Gobind Singh to Aurangzeb, he would not have committed this mistake. In his letter the Guru had rebuked the emperor for his inhumanly behaviour towards his father and brothers and condemned him for his lifestyle.

I feel extremely sorry that NCERT should engage a person like Prof. Satish Chandra, whose intellectual integrity is so much under question to write a history book for our young children and misguide them.

(The author is a noted historian and columnist.)

Do you want your children to study this?

Our ancestors were beef-eaters.
They were foreign invaders.
The great martyrs who sacrificed their lives for freedom of the country were terrorists.
The students of 11th class will study a lesson on Maqbool Fida Husain, the bigot painter who displayed goddess Durga, Saraswati and even Bharatmata in nude.
Mira, a symbol of liberated Indian womenhood, used to dance in the streets.
Swami Dayananda was called a hired preacher of Christians, anti-religious and atheist.
The NCERT books have all this and much more
Is it not the insult of our history, dharma and national heroes?
If it is, should it be tolerated silently?

http://www.organiser.org/dynamic/modules.p...d=137&page=23#2

<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The Litmus Test of Whether Your History is Secular

Arun Shourie

The pattern of NCERT History textbooks is set in stone : concoct a
picture of pre-Islamic society of Indian history as a period riddled
by discord, tensions, inequity and oppression -- evidence or no
evidence; on the other side, concoct a picture of the Islamic period
as one in which a "composite culture" flowered, one in which, in spite
of the errors of few who acted out of normal, non-religious motives,
there was peace and harmony -- evidence or no evidence!

This pattern continues throughout the textbook, Medieval India written
by Satish Chandra, and published by the NCERT for Class XI students.
Satish Chandra has been a recipient of the ICHR's projects, he has
been a member of the ICHR, he has been a National Fellow of the ICHR,
he has been Chairman of the University Grants Commission. It is about
him that Tasneem Ahmad wrote in his plagiarised book, "My debt to my
revered teacher, Professor Satish Chandra is incalculable. He took
great pains in reading and correcting the work and his considered
suggestions have paid me rich dividend." In a word, as eminent as they
come.

"Thus, there was no atmosphere of confrontation between the Sikhs and
the Mughal rulers during this period," says Satish Chandra. "Nor was
there any systematic persecution of the Hindus, and hence, no occasion
for the Sikhs or any group or sect to stand forth as the champion of
the Hindus against religious persecution. The occasional conflict
between the Gurus and the Mughal rulers was personal and political
rather than religious. Despite some display of orthodoxy by Shah Jahan
at the beginning of his reign and a few acts of intolerance, such as
the demolition of 'new' temples, he was not narrow in his outlook
which was further tempered towards the end of his reign by the
influence of his liberal son, Dara."

That being the case, what do these eminent historians have to say
about Guru Nanak, and his searing cry,

"Khurasan khasmana kiya Hindustanu daraiya
Aapae dosu na deyi karta jamu kari mughlu chadhaiya
Aiti maar payi karlande tain ko dardu na ayiya
Karta tu sabhna ka soi
Je sakta sakte kayu mare taa mani rosu na hoyi
Sakta sihu maare paye vagaye khasme sa pursai
Ratan vigadi vigoye kuttin muiya saar na koyi..."

"Having lifted Islam to the head, You have engulfed Hindustan
in dread....
Such cruelties have they inflicted, and yet Your mercy remains
unmoved....
Should the strong attack the strong the heart does not burn.
But when the
strong crush the helpless, surely the One who was to protect
them has to be
called to account.... O' Lord, these dogs have destroyed this
diamond-like
Hindustan, (so great is their terror that) no one asks after
those who have
been killed, and yet You do not pay heed..."

What do they say of Guru Nanak's account of the young brides whose
youth, jewels, honour have been snatched away by the invaders on the
orders of Babar ? What of his wail,

"Ikna vakhat khuvai ahi ikhan pooja jayi
Chadke vindu hindvandiyan kiyu tike kathi nayi
Ramu na kabhu chetiyo hundi kahndi na mile khudai..."

"Hindus have been forbidden to pray at the time of the Muslim's
namaz, Hindusociety has been left without a bath, without a tilak.
Even those who have never uttered "Ram", even they can get no respite
by shouting "Khuda,
Khuda".... The few who have survived Babar's jails wail.... The
desolation
which has come over the land.... The entire races which have been
exterminated, which have been humiliated..."

The account not of some merely eminent historian, but of Guru Nanak.
[The verses given above are merely illustrative. For a comprehensive
account of the question see, K P Agarwal's forthcoming, Sri Guru
Granth Sahib aur Islam.] Not some account written by looking at
records of centuries ago, but testimony of the moment, of what Guru
Nanak had been witness to himself...

Let us hear these eminent secularists, then, declare that this cry of
Guru Nanak was a concoction. And that the entire life and campaign of
Guru Govind Singh was born of "personal and political" factors rather
than from a profound religious impulse, and that, therefore, all his
own explanations, his impassioned, soul-stirring explanations in this
regard are that much deception.

Akbar is the epitome of tolerance, Shah Jahan "despite some display of
orthodoxy .... at the beginning of his reign and a few acts of
intolerance" remains broad-minded. The only opposition to this
liberalism comes from "orthodox elements". But here too Satish Chandra
executes the "balancing". The orthodox elements in question are always
of "the two leading faiths, Hinduism or Islam," together ! Both sides
strive to undo the liberality of the Islamic rulers out of the same
mundane motivation, that is, they oppose the liberal policy because it
threatens their entrenched interests.

Aurangzeb's orthodoxy cannot, of course, be entirely denied.
Therefore, explanations upon explanations -- secular explanations --
are invented. While reading the following, bear in mind the
far-reaching assertions these historians made about ancient India on
the basis of little evidence, and contrast them with how they treat
unambiguous, overwhelming evidence in the case of Aurangzeb.

"Later, in the eleventh year of his reign (1669)," remarks Satish
Chandra, "Aurangzeb took a number of measures which have been called
puritanical, but many of which were really of economic and social
character, and against superstitious beliefs... Many other regulations
of a similar nature, some of a moral character and some to instill a
sense of austerity, were issued..."

The destruction of temples upon temples by Aurangzeb naturally comes
in for the longest explanations! Firstly, we are told that all that
Aurangzeb did was to reiterate the old order of the Shariat -- that no
new temples shall be built, and that this "order regarding temples was
not a new one" -- it merely reaffirmed the position which had existed
during the Sultanate period, the period, remember, of "general
toleration" ! Satish Chandra adds a second explanation : "In practice,
it [the order] left wide latitude to the local officials as to the
interpretation of the words 'long standing temples'. "

A third extenuating circumstance is then invented. Having noted the
destruction of temples in Gujarat by Aurangzeb when he was the
Governor of that province, and having noted his reiteration of the
Standing Order under the Shariat, Satish Chandra says, "however, it
does not seem that Aurangzeb's order regarding ban on new temples led
to a large scale destruction of temples at the outset of the reign."
It is only when Aurangzeb "encountered political opposition from a
number of quarters, such as, the Marathas, Jats etc.," that he "seems
to have adopted a new stance". When he now came in "conflict with
local elements," he began to consider it "legitimate to destroy even
long standing Hindu temples as a measure of punishment and as a
warning." Thus, first, the order was just an old one! Second, the
order left wide latitude to the local officials ! Third, even this
order was not implemented "at the outset of the reign"! Fourth, it is
only when he encountered political opposition and when he came in
conflict with local elements that Aurangzeb began to consider it
legitimate to destroy Hindu temples! Fifth, this "new stance" too is
only something which seems to have been adopted!

Moreover, Aurangzeb did so, Satish Chandra tells us, because "he began
to look upon temples as centres of spreading subversive ideas, that is
ideas which were not acceptable to the orthodox elements. Hence the
destruction of the Kashi Vishwanath Temple at Banaras and the temple
at Mathura." "The destruction of these temples had a political
motivation as well...", Satish Chandra emphasizes, and continues, "it
was in this context that many temples built in Orissa during the last
10 to 12 years were also destroyed." And then, "but it is wrong to
think that there were any orders for the general destruction of
temples." Lest anyone come up with citations upon citations from
contemporary historians, another sentence to explain away what was
actually done : "however, the situation was different during periods
of hostilities."

The general conclusion : what Aurangzeb did "was a setback to the
policy of broad toleration followed by his predecessors" ! And even he
did it for secular reasons! And even though, compelled by these
reasons, he did it only for the shortest time, for the years marked by
hostilities instigated by "local elements" ! "However," concludes
Satish Chandra, "it seems that Aurangzeb's zeal for the destruction of
temples abated after 1679, for we do not hear of any large scale
destruction of temples in the South between 1681 and his death in
1707."

Yes, Aurangzeb introduced the jaziya, but, cautions Satish Chandra,
"it was not meant to be an economic pressure for forcing Hindus to
convert to Islam, for its incidence was to be light." For this
assertion Satish Chandra gives two bits of proof, so to say. First,
"women, children, the disabled, the indigent, that is, those whose
income was less than the means of subsistence, were exempted as were
those in government service." How could even Aurangzeb have exacted a
tax from those "whose income was less than the means of subsistence? "
And why would he exact a discriminatory and humiliating tax from those
who were in government service, that is, from those who were already
serving his interests and those of the Islamic State? The second proof
that Satish Chandra gives is that "in fact, only an insignificant
section of Hindus changed their religion due to this tax" -- but could
that not have been because of the firm attachment of Hindus to their
faith, because of their tenacity rather than because of the liberality
of Aurangzeb?

The jaziya was not meant either to meet "a difficult financial
situation". Its reimposition was in fact, says Satish Chandra, "both
political and ideological in nature." Political in the sense that "it
was meant to rally the Muslims for the defence of the State against
the Marathas and the Rajputs who were up in arms, and possibly against
the Muslim States of Deccan, especially Golconda, which was in
alliance with the infidels." A parity twice-over -- one, that
Aurangzeb was only trying to rally the Muslims just as those opposing
him had rallied the Marathas and Rajputs ! And, in any case, the ones
who were opposing him were "infidels"!

And what about the "ideological" impulse? "Ideological," yes, but the
"ideology" was everything except Islam!

Furthermore, Satish Chandra explains, "jaziya was to be collected by
honest, God-fearing Muslims who were specially appointed for the
purpose and its proceeds were reserved for the Ulema." As the proceeds
went to Ulama, there was a secular reason for exacting the tax -- it
was to be "a type of bribe for the theologians among whom there was a
lot of unemployment," and, second, as the tax was being collected by
"honest, God-fearing Muslims," one can be certain that they were
considerate and, like Allah in the Qur'an, would have never imposed
upon anyone a burden which he could not bear !

Some modern writers, Satish Chandra says, are of the opinion that
Aurangzeb's measures were designed to convert India into Dar-ul-Islam
but, in fact, "although Aurangzeb considered it legitimate to
encourage conversions to Islam, evidence of systematic or large scale
attempts at forced conversions is lacking."

And finally a piece of evidence which is a favourite with the
secularists : "Nor were Hindu nobles discriminated against. A recent
study has shown that the number of Hindus in the nobility during the
second half of Aurangzeb's reign had steadily increased, till the
Hindus, including Muslims, formed about one-third of the nobility as
against one-fourth under Shah Jahan." Correspondingly, one can claim
on behalf of the British Empire that close to 98% of the titles it
conferred -- Rai Sahib, Rai Bahadur, knighthoods and so on -- were
conferred on Indians ! That they were conferred because these Indians
were serving the British Empire faithfully, just as Aurangzeb was
taking into his nobility those who were serving his purposes
faithfully, is a matter of detail by which naturally Class XI students
would not like to be confused!

The final assessment of our secularist eminence could not be more
empathetic! First, Satish Chandra emphasizes that "Aurangzeb's
religious beliefs could not be considered the basis of his political
policies." Aurangzeb was an "orthodox Muslim," true; he was "desirous
of upholding the strict letter of the law," true; but he was also a
ruler and was "keen to strengthen and expand the empire." The former
required that he be tough with the Hindus. The latter, on the other
hand, required that he retain "the support of the Hindus to the extent
possible." The two impulses -- his religious ideas and beliefs on the
one hand and the requirements of empire on the other -- sometimes "led
him to adopt contradictory policies which harmed the empire."

Our eminent historian then proceeds to give an account of the
Marathas, the Jats, the campaigns against Golconda and Bijapur. At
every turn he labours to show that the religious impulse did not have
much to do with Aurangzeb's attitude towards any of these
"rebellions". Indeed, Aurangzeb's religious policy must be seen in the
context of the rebellions which were challenging his empire, we are
told ! Thus, Satish Chandra's final conclusion :

"Aurangzeb's religious policy should be seen in the social,
economic and political context. Aurangzeb was orthodox in his outlook
and tried to remain within the framework of the Islamic law. But this
law was developed outside India in vastly dissimilar situations, and
could hardly be applied rigidly to India. His failure to respect the
susceptibilities of his non-Muslim subjects on many occasions, his
adherence to the time-worn policy towards temples and re-imposition of
jizyah as laid down by the Islamic law did not help him to rally the
Muslims to his side or generate a greater sense of loyalty towards a
state based on Islamic law. On the other hand, it alienated segments
of the Hindus and strengthened the hands of those sections which were
opposed to the Mughal empire for political or other reasons. By
itself, religion was not a point at issue. Jizyah was scrapped within
half a dozen years of Aurangzeb's death and restrictions on building
new temples eased."

"In the ultimate resort," Satish Chandra concludes, "the decline and
downfall of the empire was due to economic, social, political and
institutional factors" -- notice, no religious factors! Akbar held the
forces of disintegration in check for some time. But it was impossible
for him to effect fundamental changes in the structure of society,
says our author, and therefore :

"By the time Aurangzeb came to the throne, the socio-economic
forces of disintegration were already strong. Aurangzeb lacked the
foresight and statesmanship necessary to effect fundamental changes in
the structure or to pursue policies which could, for the time being,
reconcile the various competing elements.

"Thus, Aurangzeb was both a victim of circumstances, and helped
to create the circumstances of which he became a victim."

Empathy personified! And this is the point : the litmus test of
secularist writing is whether you are prepared to stand up for
Aurangzeb or not.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[acharya]

<img src='http://www.organiser.org/dynamic_includes/images/2006-07-23/Book-cover-of-second-story-.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />


The distortion of India’s past by western historians

V. Lakshmikantham & J. Vasundhara Devi; What India Should Know, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, pp 308, Rs 250.00
By Manju Gupta

The deep-rooted prejudices about the qualities, traditions and religions of the East have been a pervasive and marked characteristic of Western thought of centuries. It was a thought reinforced in the 19th century by industrialisation and imperialism, and which resulted in identification of the East with backwardness and ungovernability.

We also agree that today scholarship means being at home with what is written by Western scholars, who have more than often discredited the ancient past of Indian culture and distorted the history and chronology of events.

The book under review, written by mathematicians Dr V. Lakshmikantham and Dr J. Vasundhara Devi, begins by throwing light on the confusion till today between Gupta Chandragupta and Maurya Chandragupta. They point out that actually Gupta Chandragupta flourished in 327 BC and was the contemporary of Alexander, while Maurya Chandragupta lived in 1534 BC. “But the Western historians wrongly identified Alexander’s contemporary with Maurya Chandragupta, thus affecting more than 1,200 years in the history of ancient India. This colossal blunder upset the whole scheme and brought terrible chaos into the Puranic dates of India.” They point out that it was Sir William Jones, “the first historian of India”, who changed this date to effect a sort of similitude between the Biblical and Indian conceptions of time and they add, “twelve centuries of time after the Mahabharata war (3138 BC) and 10 centuries before that are struck off like this and the history the Indians got to know is put upon this wrong base. The Western scholars have not only bungled facts and tampered with texts, but even gone to the extent to hurling abuse at ancient Indian historians and sages.”

The authors feel that colonisation had affected the Indian mind in certain aspects. Through Macaulay’s education policies, the British ensured that they left behind an inferiority complex among the Indians by constantly denigrating Indian culture. “<span style='color:red'>This is why the intellectuals of India today repeat what their masters said before and ape them after having hated them,” say the authors.</span>

They add that another masterstroke of the British was the propagation of the “absurd” theory of Aryan invasion according to which India was invaded by a tribe called Aryans who originated in western Russia and imposed upon the Dravidians of India, the hateful caste system. They continue, “To the Aryans are attributed Sanskrit, the Vedic religion, as well as India’s greatest spiritual texts, the Vedas and a host of writings like the Upanishads. The Aryan invasion myth has shown that the Indian civilisation was not that ancient and that it was secondary to the cultures that influenced the Western world. Also, whatever good thing India had developed has been a consequence of the influence of the West.”

The book deals with the general prejudice about the East, the distortion of Indian history and the superficial translation of the Vedas by Western scholars. The authors comment ironically that the “supposedly enlightened writers” such as Edward Gibbon who never set foot east of Switzerland, in his History of the Roman Empire, loved to make play of the “despicable people of the East”, and Voltaire, who never travelled beyond Berlin, “fantasised about the misery and bigotry of the Eastern nation”. They add, “The most conspicuous example was Lord Macaulay, who carried his all-consuming racist hatred of the East to ridiculous depths by asserting that the entire corpus of knowledge that the Orient possessed could be contained in half a thimble.” They add that the world is but one and the East and West bifurcation is a mythical boundary.

The catastrophic event of the formation of a Mediterranean Sea resulted in the loss of culture and civilisation existing in Europe. The history of the Greeks, Roman and the British are traced briefly and so is the awakening of Europe from the “dark ages”.

The book ridicules the theory of Aryan invasion and gives in points the reasons for its dismissal. It says that the Aryans spread from the Bharatavarsha in different directions to spread the Aryan culture. “There was never any Aryan invasion of India or any Aryan-Dravidian war. The cradle of civilisation was not Sumeria in Mesopotamia, but the Sapta Sindhu, the land of seven rivers in north-west India.”

Then it expounds on the misrepresentation of the two Chandraguptas and tries to set right the chronology of events in India.

It points out that the Aryan invasion theory was aimed at dividing India into factions. It explains that the Aryans were extremely sensitive to the high walks of life, righteousness and nobility, both in thought and action. That is, the Aryans followed the Vedic Dharma, also called the Sanatana Dharma. Dharma is “that nature which makes a thing what it is.” Thus Manava Dharma implies that human beings “should be true to their own essential nature, which is divine; therefore, all efforts in life should be directed towards maintaining the dignity of the atma (the self) and not plodding through life like helpless animals. Thus Dharma is the ‘law of being’.”

The book exposes the deliberate distortions wrought by Orientalists in their efforts to write the history of India.

The book traces the great traditions laid down by Sanatana Dharma throughout the world that endured in Bharatakhand in the 12th century.

And the authors try to synthesise India with its glorious heritage and the present technological advances ready for taking India into the twenty-first century. The chapter ends on a positive note that this entry “will have a new awakening and the humanity will be much more spiritual than it has been.”

The book concludes by saying that the Sanatana Dharma “is much more open than any other religion to new ideas, scientific thought and social experimentation. Many principles basic to Sanatana Dharma initially appeared strange to the West, such as yoga, meditation, reincarnation and methods of interiorisation, but these principles have now found worldwide acceptance. Sanatana Dharma is, of course, a world religion…”

(Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, Kulpati Munshi Marg, Mumbai - 400 007.)

[acharya]

August 21, 2006, Pioneer
Sacred texts -- Chandan Mitra
<span style='color:red'>
Probably because politicians rarely read history - leave alone learn from it - they are obsessed with revising it. At least since the mid-70s, India's history is being tossed around by Governments of different hues because they aspire to condition impressionable minds to their version of our past. </span><i>
What is the urgency to condition the minds- Is the sinster goal to create a breakdown of India and a revolution.</i>

With equal zeal, successor Governments have spent much of their time "righting the wrongs" only to have one version supplanted by another a few years down the line.

The latest outrage over existing and proposed history textbooks that the UPA regime is bent on teaching schoolchildren follows this now familiar pattern. As a result of an uproar in the Rajya Sabha last Friday, a reluctant Government conceded an inquiry into the alleged

defiling of heroes of India, although I am extremely sceptical about the outcome of any such probe.

The origin of the latest fracas is a politically motivated plan to bring contemporary history up to date in NCERT textbooks. According to a well known self-publicist who is purportedly in charge of the Arjun Singh sponsored project to inject "political correctness" (read Marxist venom), NCERT books will soon be updated to include chapters on recent developments like the assassination of Indira Gandhi, Punjab terrorism, the anti-Sikh pogrom of 1984, the Ayodhya Movement and more importantly the Gujarat riots of 2002, which the worthy in-charge asserted "targeted a particular community".

As a student of history, I strongly object to the move to include such recent events as part of the school history curriculum. <span style='color:blue'>There is a recognised convention that only those events that occurred approximately 50 years before the present should qualify as history. There is a very good reason for this. The 50-year gap virtually ensures that the protagonists of those events are no longer in our midst and are, therefore, neither extolled nor maligned. This is important, for history revolves around political personalities and they should not be able to benefit from, or be disadvantaged by, the discourse around their actions.</span>

It is too early, for instance, to make a historical assessment of the role of the legendary DGP of Punjab Police KPS Gill who almost single-handedly combated the terrorist scourge in the State. He has his staunch admirers, among whom I am proud to be classified. Equally, he has strong detractors in the jholawala, human rights lobby. Besides, the relevant official documents pertaining to Punjab terrorism will not be declassified at least till 2043, the year that marks the 50th anniversary of the end of sustained terror in the State, although sporadic incidents, including the murder of Chief Minister Beant Singh, happened even later. In the absence of documents that are declassified only after 50 years (it's 30 years in a less volatile society like Britain) and released to the National Archives for scholars to see, no dispassionate judgement is possible. In other words, no authoritative historical manuscripts will roll out before, say, 2050, on Punjab terrorism, including its victims such as Indira Gandhi. Textbooks for schoolchildren must follow rather than precede scholarly works. It's preposterous to prejudice the minds of tomorrow's historians, who are studying in school today, through judgmental, essentially journalistic, accounts of events of the recent past.

Arjun Singh's secular fundamentalist spin doctors have given the game away by including the Gujarat riots in the ambit of their project to tamper with the past. There can be no guesses as to what they have in mind in their sanctimonious reference to the "targeting of a particular community". Given the antecedents of the spokesman of the project, it can safely be assumed that the "particular community" that was targeted by a mob of murderous hoodlums at Godhra railway station on February 27, 2002 is not on the radar. The aim, obviously, is to gun for those allegedly involved in the post-Godhra riots. The bull's eye is clearly the incumbent Chief Minister of the State.

I am astonished that the Government proposes to teach children about what happened in Gujarat even before the report of the official Commission of Inquiry has been submitted. The Nanavati-Shah Commission is still haggling with Rashtrapati Bhawan, seeking access to former President KR Narayanan's correspondence with the then Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee. Obviously, the Commission has not even started writing its report. So what will the textbooks rely on by way of "authoritative" information? The findings of the UC Banerjee panel propped up by Lalu Yadav, which concluded that the kar sevaks returning from Ayodhya were suddenly possessed by an urge for collective suicide and set themselves on fire inside two coaches of the Sabarmati Express after securely bolting them from outside? I am afraid this is the only reference that is likely to be found in the proposed NCERT textbook to the Godhra incident that sparked a reaction in the rest of the State. It is not my intention to justify what happened in Gujarat subsequently. The only question is whether an event barely four years old should be formally taught to children for they will be examined on their knowledge of it. And given the conflicting passions that the Gujarat events, or similar communally tainted issues such as the Ram Janmabhoomi Movement, arouse in people including probable examiners, is this fair to children?

The pseudo-secularist high priests also propose to include the Ayodhya Movement in the list of school textbook subjects with the evident aim of denouncing the BJP, particularly LK Advani. Again, we know how violently India is divided on this issue. Existing scholarship, for whatever it is worth in the absence of declassified documents, is equally conflicting in its conclusions. Will the inclusion of the Ayodhya Movement, that too, a patently one-sided version, be in the best interests of fostering communal unity? Or will it result in further disharmony?

It can be argued that in the age of information, 24-hour news channels, a growing number of newspapers and unlimited, easily accessible material on the Internet, old-fashioned ideas about guarding the contentious present from the inquisitive minds of children makes sense no more. But the crucial difference is that information about complex issues is one thing, to be tested in examinations about their "correct" interpretation quite another.

I may be accused of having no faith in the impartiality of the crop of scholars who have been entrusted this job by the Government. Indeed, I don't. To begin with, they are brazen. They have refused to pull out even the derogatory references to Vedic Hindu customs, the role of a nationalist martyr like Guru Tegh Bahadur and deried the entire Jat community. Their old books have been re-issued by the NCERT in place of the more appropriate, non-controversial versions published during Murli Manohar Joshi's stewardship of the HRD Ministry.
<span style='color:red'>
Worse, they have described icons like Rishi Aurobindo as a terrorist. Can we trust our history in the hands of those who blaspheme the nation and its beliefs?
</span>

[acharya]

BJP corners Govt on NCERT textbooks

Pioneer News Service | New Delhi

Centre orders probe into portrayal of freedom fighters as terrorists

The controversy over distortion of National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) textbooks saw a major uproar in the Rajya Sabha on Friday forcing the Government to order an inquiry into portrayal of country's legendary freedom fighters as terrorists and inclusion of other objectionable issues.

With the NCERT already in the eye of a storm over inclusion of several communally sensitive issues like Babri demolition, Sikh riots and Gujarat riots, the Government was placed on the back foot by the combined Opposition.

The issue rocked the upper House when the BJP-led Opposition strongly protested against alleged distortions and objectionable language in the NCERT school textbooks.

The Left and the Samajwadi Party and even some Congress members also backed the demand for a probe.

"This is a very urgent matter and I request the Government to conduct a probe into how these books have come about. This requires immediate action," said CPI(M)'s Sitaram Yechury .

Sensing the mood of the House, the Government assured the Elders that the Ministry would examine the issue and do the needful.

The House saw uproar when Ravi Shankar Prasad (BJP) read out portions from the NCERT books which carried objectionable language and describing freedom fighters like Bal Gangadhar Tilak as "terrorists."

"Bipin Chandra's book was reintroduced and revised. The book accuses Jats of robbery. What's worse, it calls Lok Manya Tilak, Arvindo Ghosh and Bipin Chandra Pal terrorists," said Prasad.

Almost the entire Opposition demanded a probe and immediate action against the writer of the books, which according to them, were included in the syllabus this year. The BJP members walked into the well of the House seeking permission to submit the books to the Chair.

Deputy Chairman K Rehman Khan denied the permission to table the books and said it was against the rules and urged the agitated members to go back to their seats. The House then saw sharp exchanges between the BJP and treasury benches with the Congress members countering the charge initially claiming that it was unlikely that such books were part of the school curriculum.

The treasury benches later came around to the Opposition view that the matter was serious and Minister of State for Parliamentary Affairs Suresh Pachauri assured the House that he would convey the sentiments of the members to the concerned ministry.

Prasad said the books also contained derogatory references to various communities and castes and obscene language besides suggestions to girl students to use cosmetics and that education and merit alone did not ensure progress in life.

He said the books allegedly termed Jat community as marauders and disparaging depiction of some other castes, adding it would pollute the minds of impressionable minds. The deputy chairman expressed concern over this and said the matter was serious.

Amidst the din, Satyavrat Chaturvedi (Congress) said if these allegations were true, the Government should look into it. Samajwadi Party leader Amar Singh aired similar views and asked the Government to take suitable action against the guilty people and Sitaram Yechury agreed with this suggestion.

Seeking a probe into the alleged distortions, Abani Roy (RSP) said such books should be banned and Vijay Darda (Congress) said the distortion should be set right and an inquiry ordered to find out who had done such a thing. The din died down when Pachauri assured the members that the Government will take the matter seriously.

Another important issue to come up in the Zero Hour was the alleged irregularities in the evaluation of answer sheets of students of Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut. The matter was raised by Alka Balram Kshatriya (Congress) and Sushma Swaraj (BJP) and they expressed concern over school students examining answer papers of graduation and post- graduation students of Chaudhary Charan Singh University and demanded action by the University Grants Commission.


------


Mischief afoot
The Pioneer Edit Desk
Propaganda as textbooks

In the guise of "connecting knowledge with real life situations", propagandists of the Congress masquerading as academicians are planning to feed young, impressionable minds with monumental lies by including them in NCERT textbooks. It is amazing that Mr Yogendra Yadav, a self-proclaimed psephologist who is seen more on television channels unabashedly plumbing for the Congress and the Left or pushing the case of caste over merit, and whose academic credentials would impress only his political benefactors like Union Human Resource Development Minister Arjun Singh, has been assigned the task of 'chief adviser' to the panel that is responsible for re-writing NCERT textbooks, thus putting a big question mark over the future of education in this country. Given the fact that a person of such dubious repute shall lay down the guidelines, it is not surprising that children will be fed with Congress-sanitised versions of what Mr Yadav has the audacity to describe as the "truth" about the 2004 riot in Gujarat, the Ayodhya dispute and the 1984 pogrom against Sikhs. We can take it for granted that what will appear in print in political science textbooks will be no different from the contents of Congress or CPI(M) pamphlets that paint the BJP in the bleakest of colours while celebrating recalcitrant Islamism; we can also be sure that what our children will be told about the horrendous massacre of Sikhs by mobs encouraged, if not led, by Congress leaders after Indira Gandhi's assassination shall be more than a shade different from the truth. Nor should we have any doubts about the wondrous things that will be listed as "achievements" of Mrs Gandhi's Emergency that saw the ruthless suppression of civil liberties and democratic rights. After all, as Mr Yadav has explained, the material for these events will be culled from Government sources - in other words, from Congress propaganda archives. To add a touch of authenticity, Mr Yadav and his cohorts will cite from the perverse report on the Godhra carnage prepared by Justice Banerjee at the behest of Mr Lalu Prasad Yadav which was used as publicity material along with posters of the RJD's first couple to woo Muslim voters during last year's Bihar Assembly election. <b>The textbooks conceived by cronies of the regime of the day, of course, will maintain a silence over the Nellie massacre, the Bhagalpur and Kalupur riots, Operation Bluestar, the torching of Ananda Marg monks in Kolkata, the ethnic cleansing of Kashmir valley, the genocide against Kashmiri Pandits, the insidious spread of Islamic fanaticism and similar acts of omission and commission committed by the Congress and its Communist allies. Connection with "real life situations" indeed!</b>

This vile mischief must be nipped in the bud before it is too late. We cannot allow classrooms to be converted into party propaganda centres; that may have been fashionable in the USSR, but in democratic India it is unacceptable. This paper has repeatedly asserted that the writing of history and textbooks should be taken out of the vicious control of Government and left to qualified academicians with unimpeachable credentials. Till such time this is done, charlatans who are dependent on Government largesse and political patronage shall continue to poison the minds of our children, denying them the right to think freely and to choose fact over fiction

[acharya]

Indian Governments Hard on Hindus, Their Temples, Soft on All Others

By Yatindra Bhatnagar
Everything against Hindus seems to be justified in India, a country dominated by 82 percent Hindus. There are no such things as Hindu rights, safety of Hindu temples and their money, Hindu pilgrimages and the Hindu way of life. Instead, every effort is made to favor, appease, fund and tolerate others, especially Muslims who are doubly benefited by the secular policies of the Government of India, and states ruled by the Congress Party and its coalition partners. Their Sharia laws give them an added advantage.

Muslims get money from Hindu temple funds and are also allowed to practice their own Sharia (Islamic) laws for marriage, divorce, family inheritance and other customs. Civil laws are not uniformly applied to Muslims and their rights, real or imaginary, traditional or just made up, are generously safeguarded. They are permitted practices even if some of them are in direct conflict with India’s laws on divorce, maintenance money after divorce, and other social, religious and cultural practices.

Some time back International Opinion carried an article detailing the takeover of Hindu temples in Karnataka and transfer of large chunks of their funds to mosques, churches, Islamic schools (madarsas) that churn out radical Muslims, and Christian schools. The die-hard Christians merrily go on converting simple, less educated, tribals, socially and economically weaker sections of Hindu population all over India.

The Roman Catholic Pope, when he visited India last year, had bluntly told his audience in Hindu-dominated India that his mission is to convert people to Christianity (Roman Catholic version, of course). It was a slap on Hindus and should have been on the face of the Government of India that had invited him and that claims to be “secular.”

A part of the Hindu money also goes to Christian Non-Government Organizations (NGOs), who utilize these funds for the spread of Christian religion, education, social and cultural practices. Evidently, Hindu money, Hindu temples, Hindu religion, Hindu rights, and Hindu population, everything is going down.

The Congress policy is to take over Hindu temples that are a big source of money from millions of devotees every year. That money is fully controlled by governments run by Congress Party, and its coalition partners. Hindu Temple Trusts, or traditional priests, no longer run those Temples. They are, instead, run by government-appointed Boards or Managing Committees consisting of bureaucrats from other communities also.

Thus a very large amount of Hindu money is going to government coffers and through them to others to the detriment of Hindus, and Hindu temples. That is a clear case of discrimination on the basis of religion, and partisan policies of the government at the Center and Congress-ruled states. This is wrong, and a violation of constitutional norms. This is blatantly unfair policy towards Hindus. And this is arbitrary, to say the least.

There has been no take over of mosques, churches or institutions run by Muslims and Christians. Only Hindu temples are targeted. Why is this discrimination and differential treatment? And the meek, tolerant, submissive Hindus don’t raise a finger to protest it! And when they do, they are branded “communalists” by Muslims, leftists, and even some sections of so-called secular Hindus. How surprising!

This should be challenged in the highest court of the country, and other forums.
The new arbitrary development is about one of the most famous Hindu temples in Mumbai – Siddhivinayak. The Maharashtra government of Congress and its junior partner, Sharad Pawar’s Nationalist Congress Party (NCP), have conveniently managed to take over Siddhivinayak Temple Trust that gets huge amount of money from Hindu devotees. These devotees include top movie stars such as Amitabh Bachchan and Aishwarya Rai who regularly visit Siddhivinayak and offer big money and jewelry.

Siddhivinayak is a temple of Ganesh, the most popular deity in Maharashtra, and also many other parts of India. No traditional religious function is complete without first praying to Ganesh, the son of Shiva and Parvati.

My friend Devendra Singh has complained that the Congress and NCP have divided the Shirdi Sai Baba Sansthan and Siddhivinayak Temple Trust amongst themselves as if these Trusts are commodities to be used and exploited by the Government for its anti-Hindu and anti-national policies of minority appeasement.

He adds: “Hindu Janjagruti Samiti (hindujagruti.org) appeals to all devotees of Lord Ganesh to avoid making donations to the Siddhivinayak Temple. Instead donations may be made in any local Ganesh Temple after paying obeisance to the Siddhivinayak idol.”

This is only one way to protest the government action. But its doubtful if this will be effective as Hindus are, by and large, naïve, indifferent, and oblivious to the far-reaching consequences of government policies. They have to be really jolted to awaken them.

The government is always looking to the other side when there is an issue of Muslim intransigence, incongruity, or even violation of established and acceptable norms of civilized behavior. Some time back in a Northern Indian town, a father-in-law was found to have physical relations with his daughter-in-law. Whether they were consensual or not is not valid here, but the fact was that the local Muslim religious leadership ruled that since the woman had relations with her father-in-law, she is now to be recognized as his wife, and consequently, the mother of her husband.

A more ludicrous ruling would be difficult to find. And all that was claimed to be in accordance with Islamic laws. Obviously, the government did not want to interfere in an Islamic matter. It’s a mockery of the Indian Constitution, and denigration for the woman.

Islam and its followers are very strict in matters of conversion. Once a Muslim, always a Muslim. He or she can convert to other religions at the risk of their lives. A celebrated case was about the movie super star of yesteryears, Nargis, who was the first recipient of Padma Shri and had access to Prime Minister Jawahar Lal Nehru.

Nargis was born a Muslim to a Muslim lady, Jaddan Bai. There were all kinds of rumors about her father being a Hindu but that is not very relevant here. She married another movie star Sunil Dutt, a Hindu. It was well known that the marriage ceremony was performed with Hindu rites and rituals, and that Nargis lived like a Hindu, observing various practices of Hinduism.

When Nargis died, Dutt prepared to take the body for cremation and to perform Hindu rituals for the departed soul. It was reported that the brothers/cousins of Nargis, insisted that the body be taken to the Muslim burial ground and be buried with Islamic rituals and customs. Dutt, a gentleman that he was, did not want to create a scene, and quarrel before the dead body of his beloved wife. He allowed the body to be whisked away by the intolerant Muslim relatives. The Islamic intransigence prevailed upon Hindu tolerance.

Recently in Malaysia, the country supposed to be a moderate Muslim nation, a shocking case, somewhat similar to that of Nargis, was reported. A Hindu wife’s complaint is that her husband’s body was buried by claiming that he had converted to Islam. The man, a celebrated former Olympian, had died in coma, and Islamic courts ruled that he had converted. Some paperwork was produced by the local Mullah to bolster their claim. The man’s wife, his other relatives, and friends had no information about his alleged conversion, yet the body was snatched away from a Hindu wife.

Malaysian Hindus have taken up the case but it did not attract worldwide attention, as it is a case of an aggrieved Hindu, and not a Muslim or a Christian. The Hindus themselves have to raise their united voice louder, clearer, effectively and aggressively. They don’t have to take up arms like radical Muslims, but can make their point known worldwide through relentless campaign for truth, justice, fairness, religious and social freedom - and no discrimination whatsoever. They should not take any injustice lying down, or they would continue to be trampled upon by this or that religion.

Yet another recent case has become a ‘cause celebre’ worldwide. But this one is related to a Muslim in Afghanistan facing death for converting to Christianity. Abdul Rahman had converted years back but when other people found that out, he was sentenced to death by an Islamic court – the only kind of court in that country. Radical Muslims and Islamic courts ruled that by abandoning his religion, Rahman had insulted Islam and deserved death penalty.

Rahman’s case is being fought by public opinion, Christian groups, and even Christian governments, worldwide. Consequently he might be released. But, I will not be surprised if, without adequate security, and safe journey to a democratic, religion- tolerant country, he is killed after his release by the same radical Muslims. Muslim clerics keep clamoring for his death. This is Islam, the religion touted as compassionate, kind and tolerant.

This is happening in a country liberated by the US-led coalition from the hands of ultra radical Talibans who had shown no religious tolerance whatsoever. On the contrary, they had even blasted the world famous towering Buddha statues at Bamiyan. The statues were not converting, but only silently witnessing the atrocities on girls and women, other religions and opponents of Talibans. They were blasted in the name of Islam, and Allah.

That happened in Afghanistan under the Talibans. Rahman’s case is under Hamid Karzai’s government, a man put there by the Americans.

A thing like that could have happened in India too. Islamic laws would have issued death sentence. It would not have had the legal sanction of Indian courts but when it comes to Islamic Sharia laws, who cares? Fatwas, and radical Islamists could do the dirty work.

Recently India did have a weird case that should have shocked the people. According to a report by the main news agency, Press Trust of India, a Muslim in his sleep had uttered the word “Talaq” three times. That was enough, and the local Mullahs accepted it as the man’s decision to divorce his wife. No amount of explanations would satisfy the local Muslim religions leaders and they asked the couple to split.

PTI reported that Sohela Ansari told friends that her husband Aftab had uttered the word “talaq” three times in his sleep. When local Islamic leaders came to know that, they said Aftab’s words constituted a divorce under the Islamic procedure known as “triple talaq.” The West Bengal couple, married for 11 years, have three children.

The local Mullahs also ruled that if the couple wanted to remarry the mandatory waiting period is 100 days. Meantime, Sohela would have to spend at least one night with another man (deemed to be a marriage) and then be divorced by that other man before she can even think of remarrying her original man. What a religious decree! What kind of justice!

The news is that the couple has refused to obey the order and the issue has been referred to a local family counseling center. Unless this Mullahcracy ends, the couple is doomed.

The silver lining in the case is that Zafarul-Islam Khan, an Islamic scholar and editor of The Milli Gazette, a popular Muslim newspaper, has said: “This is a totally unnecessary controversy and the local ‘community leaders’ or whosoever has said it, are totally ignorant of Islamic law.”

“The law clearly says any action under compulsion or in a state of intoxication has no effect. The case of someone uttering something while asleep falls under this category and will have no impact whatsoever,” Khan opined. Would the radical Mullahs listen?

Ultimately the case might be settled in Sohela’s favor. However, the weird Islamic laws and their inhuman interpretation by Sharia courts and radical Muslim leaders, are clearly a gross violation of India’s Constitution. It’s also a blunt challenge to Indian justice system. All that is happening under the very nose of governments – state and Central. And nobody has the courage to do anything tangible, and settle these matters once and for all by enforcing uniform civil laws for all the citizens of India irrespective of their religious affiliation.

The need for a Uniform Civil Code is one of the Directive Principles under the Indian Constitution but no government has shown courage to prepare and enforce that. A really moderate Muslim, the then Chief Justice of India’s Supreme Court, Justice Ahmadi, a few years back, had publicly asked the Central Government to implement the Directive Principle related to the Uniform Civil Code. But nothing has happened in all these years.

As long as appeasement of the so-called minority communities continues, and the rights of Hindus trampled upon, the country will keep seeing these types of unacceptable and weird behavior. The main culprits are Muslim Mullahs and the followers of Islam.

The Christian evangelical crowd is the other getting preferential treatment at the expense of Hindus and Hindu rights. This is strange in a country overwhelmingly dominated by Hindus whose tolerance has become their weakness for everyone to exploit.

By the way out of one billion plus of India’s population, the Muslims constitute only about 12 percent. The Christians are even less, only 2.3 percent. The Sikhs are even lesser, only 1.9 percent. Out of the rest, over 82 percent are Hindus - mostly sleeping.

Wake up Hindus before you are crushed beyond recognition in your own country!

[acharya]

NCERT withdraws 4 books, rewrites portions on Sikh figures
New Delhi: Four NCERT textbooks containing ''objectionable'' matter on prominent Sikh figures Guru Nanak, Maharaja Ranjit Singh and Banda Bahadur were being rewritten and fours others have been withdrawn after objections from scholars of minority comunities.

The NCERT took the decision on a recommendation of the National Commission for Minorities (NCM), after receiving the objections from the scholars, the Commission said here today, adding that the information was conveyed to it on January 31.

The NCERT consulted authors before deciding for making changes in the books, it said.

Portions relating to the three Sikh figures being rewritten are found in 'Social Sciences' written by Prof Romila Thapar for class seven, 'Social Sciences'(Part 1) by Prof Arjun Dev and Indira Arjun Dev for Class eight, 'Modern India by Prof Bipin Chandra for Class 12 and Contemporary World History (Part 11) by Prof Arjun Dev for Class 12.

The Commission said the NCERT had also amended some controversial portions about Jainism and Vardharman Mahavira in the book 'Ancient India,' written by Prof R S Sharma' for class 11.

The withdrawn books are 'Indian and the World' written by Seema Yadav for class seven, Contemporary India' by Hari Om for Class nine, Modern India by Satish Chandra Mittla for Class 12 and Medieval India by Prof Satish Chandar for Classs 11, the Commission said.

The objectionable portions in the textbooks were discussed in a meeting with NCERT academicians which was presided over NCM chairman Tarlochan Singh at the Commission office here.

The NCERT have also agreed to include the names of Bhai Vir Singh, Nanak Singh and Amrita Pritam, all eminent Punjabi Litterateurs in the list of modern writers in the textbook 'Contemporaray World History'(Part11) by Prof Arjun Dev for Class 12.

------

Jholawallah obscurantism replaces Marxist poppycock

Udayan Namboodiri/ New Delhi

What is so earthshaking about the "nationalist movement in Indo-China" that it should be represented with greater emphasis before India's 14-year-olds than their own freedom struggle? And, that too in a textbook titled India and the Contemporary World?


<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Jholawallahs junk our past, add reams without rhyme </b>
Udayan Namboodiri/ New Delhi
Mr Krishna Kumar's much-hyped "load reduction" scheme, which was used to push NCERT's Curriculum Framework-2005, has evidently been torn apart by HRD Minister Arjun Singh's jholawallah brigade which was recruited to draw up the History component of the Social Science pedagogy. 
Maratha block-buster

The new syllabus, which will come into effect from March 2005, imposes 11 chapters under the History "unit" alone for Class VI students. After that, the child of 11 has got to cover six chapters under Geography followed by some half a dozen chapters on "diversity" and "government".

Then, in Class VII, the students would have "Our Pasts II" (sic) which covers 10 chapters, "Our Environment" with seven and at least 10 more on "Why Democracy" and "State Government". This torment continues in Class VIII where "Our Pasts-III" (sic) comes with 13, "Our Environment with seven and a huge section taking under its sweep virtually everything from traditional economics to 'understanding media'."

To call this anything less than punishment in the name of education would call for skills in mental gymnastics. Far from a general smattering of information, the syllabus is pretty extensive without really teaching the child anything.

Take a sample. "The Nationalist Movement" is Chapter 12 for Class VII. It has three components - a) Overview of the nationalist movement from the 1870s to the 1940s; b) Diverse trends within the movement and different social groups involved, and, c) Links with constitutional changes.

Class VII students have a chapter called "The Creation of an Empire" where everything about all the Mughal kings, their relations with other rulers, administration and the court, agrarian relations and a "case study of Akbar" is mentioned. It is followed by a chapter on architecture and another "case study" - this time on Shah Jehan.

Meanwhile, the old Marxist tactic of discriminating against the challengers of Islamic hegemony is amply evident.<b> Under "New political formations in the 18th Century", the Marathas make up only a "case study". There is no mention of Shivaji or Rana Pratap. </b>

<b>The greatest injustice is meted out to the Sikhs. Under "Popular beliefs and religious debates", a chapter for Class VII, there is no mention of Guru Nanak at all though Kabir is a "case study". The Khalsa Panth did not happen. Guru Govind Singh and Guru Teg Bahadur, who were insulted repeatedly by Marxist Satish Chandra have been simply ignored this time. As for the great Banda Bahadur, he too did not exist. The valiant Jats are given short shrift as well. </b>

So, despite the humungous sweep of the syllabus, the panel of historians recruited by HRD Minister Arjun Singh has taken care to whitewash any trace of the genie of nationalism. This follows from the jholawallah-Marxist theory that before British rule, the Indian people did not have a conception of nationhood. The textbook writers - whoever they are is a top secret even to NCERT's own Social Science department - have been given the latitude to depict the Tughlaqs and Mughals as "Indians" and whoever resisted their pillage as inconsequential.

<span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>Is it possible to read Indian history without Mahmud of Ghazni's plunders ? NCERT seems to think so. Prithviraj Chauhan ? Irrelevant. Even Kautilya, the author of the Arthashastra, one of the world's most famous works on politics and statecraft, is obliterated from the study on ancient India. Adi Shankaracharya, who united India by setting up the four mathas and preaching Advaita is found undeserving of mention. Moving to the modern era, one finds the Brahmo Samaj and its founder, Raja Rammohan Roy, given the quiet ignore. Doubtless, Roy's name would be packed in during a discussion on "debates around sati" (Chapter 7 for Class VIII) but what about his profound views on the Upanishads? </span>

The list historic personalities, their contributions and events left out and the caricature of is long enough to be a national shame. It is as if the collective memory of India has undergone a silent implosion. No government anywhere has done so much to massacre its own past. 
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[Guest]

<!--emo&:angry:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/mad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='mad.gif' /><!--endemo--> <span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'><span style='font-family:Impact'>What is perhaps not being realised by these acts of omission and commission that to study all this students will flock to foreign Universities.</span></span>

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Distorting history </b>
<i>Politicisation of education in the name of detoxification, will give birth to a generation of ignoramuses, says JS Rajput </i>

After a lapse of little over two years of 'desaffronised' and 'detoxified' adventures in school education, the new textbooks are suddenly in focus. Children must learn contemporary context and historical and political developments of the last six decades is the conceptual formulation being presented to the country. Therefore, why should the children not read and 'learn' about Babri Masjid, Gujarat riots, 1984 riots, Emergency, etc.? There is already an indication of the shape of the things to come.

The class IX social science textbook 'Democratic Politics' has a collage on Gujarat riots. Below it, is a boxed piece on National Human Rights Commission. The collage headline says, "A rights violation, says Congress." No other party, not even the CPI(M), finds place. It's Congress and that's what matters in a 'secular' set-up! The box description contains the sentence, "A large number of cases were filed in the court against those accused of rioting and massacre of nearly 2,000 people, mostly Muslims. Human rights organisations and media were saying that the State Government was not serious about pursuing these cases or catching the culprits." The Nation has to be ready for new lessons in objectivity and truthfulness in textbook writing. <b>I am keen to read how Emergency will be described?</b>

Having been responsible for the now much maligned National Curriculum Frame-work for School Education-2000, I have deliberately refrained from making any observations on the contents of the curriculum framework developed in 2005 and the series of textbooks that followed. The intention of the incumbents at the helm of educational affairs at present were made public in no uncertain terms in May 2004: Every thing initiated and achieved during the preceding five years was declared 'toxified and saffronised' and rejected. Never before in India had a change of Government resulted in curriculum change in such biased, prejudged and prejudiced manner. I am yet to understand what was 'toxified and saffronised' in it.

Some of the textbooks were ready only by the end of April 2004. It is worth recalling that a book on Thirukural for school children and one on Vedanta by Dr Karan Singh for school teachers were banned without any consultations with the then Director. The Secretary of the Communist Party of India wrote on July 13, 2004, the book entitled "Global Educational Change" be stopped 'now that the books are being detoxified'! It was promptly accepted. These books were later released reluctantly. The message was loud and clear: The set of experts and activists that has lost in the legal battle was ready to take over and they needed it 'full', not in parts. Those, who made all the hue and cry on the removal of a few paragraphs from history books in 2001 were not a different lot.

Delhi Assembly was the first to pass a resolution to ban one of the history books as it contained "incorrect facts presented in derogatory language". The book, written nearly three decades ago, was a reprint of 2001. The legislator who moved the resolution thought it was a new book prepared in 2001. When I read about it in newspapers, I congratulated him for taking an academically sound stand. He was shocked: "Is it not a new book?" No sir, it was not. NCERT then got this book and few others examined and requested CBSE not to use certain paragraphs for teaching or examination purposes.

The detractors of the NCERT cried from the rooftops: "The country is in danger, saffronisation is taking place." What followed later regarding history textbooks itself became history. Interestingly, the euphoria of desaffronisation and detoxification is slowly and quietly vanishing, the fate it was predestined to meet. All that was removed in 2001 as indicated above was brought back in a huff in July 2004; five copies each of the three decades old history textbooks were printed and send to library for 'reference purposes'! And now, assurances have been given in the High court of Delhi that around 40 paragraphs have already been excluded and the exclusion of almost a similar number is under consideration! Could we call it resaffronisation? During these two years, it was very clear that the contents of textbooks removed under my decisions were incorrect and a deliberate attempt to distort facts. Once the nation was made familiar of these distortions, it will not allow these distortions a second entry.

The language, the choice of content and free and frank use of unconstitutional words and terms in the textbooks has attracted attention of the people and also Parliament. Not many would like to recall that when aberrations in History books were taken up for discussion in Parliament after the release of the curriculum framework of 2000, the discussion was on party lines. It is, indeed, encouraging that a consensus has emerged in Parliament to get an enquiry conducted in the content, languages and the intent behind the desaffronised textbooks. To some one like me, it vindicates fully the approach taken five years ago that textbooks have a prime responsibility to achieve social cohesion and learning to live together.

Having served NCERT as a full Professor for over three decades, I must be permitted the privilege of claiming some acquaintance with its functioning and the talent pool it has developed. Established 45 years ago, it is internationally recognised as the unique institution of its kind, which has the best of expertise in all aspects of school education and teacher education. Also, it has created high level expert manpower in States and UT's also.

In every earlier exercise of curriculum development and textbook preparation, it has associated expertise from other educational institutions including top-level institutions of higher learning and research. Never before was the role of its own faculty so marginalised as in the current context. Peruse the list of any of the textbook advisory committee and the position would be clear. Not a single chairperson, chief advisor or adviser is from within the organisation. Even the memberships of such committees tells the same story. Yes, member-coordinators are from within the organisation. They know what they are supposed to look after. Are there no 'best brains' in the NCERT in any of the subject area? Should this national neglect be inflicted on an organisation, which was created to be the best in the assigned area?

<b>It takes decades to create an outstanding institution but only days and months to demoralise anyone of them.</b>
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[acharya]

NCERT beyond redemption
Apropos JS Rajput’s article ‘Distorting history’ (August 23) I do not agree with his evaluation of the quality and expertise of the NCERT faculty, past or present. <b>In fact, the NCERT as an institution has no expertise in the field of school education and has distorted it beyond redemption.</b>

The NCERT lost its autonomy when Nurul Hassan, then Union Education Minister, imposed 19 subject expert committees on the NCERT in 1975-76 to develop curriculum and prepare school textbooks. <span style='color:red'>These committees later turned into what can be termed ‘academic mafia’. </span>

Human Resource Development Minister Arjun Singh is following the same route by appointing those with little knowledge of school education in the textbook advisory committees. Regarding the quality and expertise of the NCERT faculty members, the less said the better. They have turned every recommendation of the
Kothari Commission Report, “National Education and Development”, upside down.

Sudarshan Kumar Kapur

[Guest]

<b>Textbooks: who writes and for whom?</b>
<b>By J S Rajput</b>
retd. Director NCERT.

[Guest]

A passage from the <i>Khazain-ul-futuh </i>by Amir Khusro. The guy is regarded as a SECULAR and TOLERANT Muslim of the 13th Century:

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Having described the dagger thrusts in many victories over the Mughals, I now come to the conquest of the Hind•s of Gujr•t:—* As the sword of the Emperor of land and sea had been plentifully smeared with the blood of the infidel Mughals, he wished to wash off this clotted impurity in the immense ocean.

Consequently, on Wednesday, the 20th Jamad•ul Awwal, 699 A.H., a fortunate day, he issued a firm•n to the ‘Ar•z-i W•la* to send an army, like clouds and rain, to the coast of Gujr•t to destroy the temple of Somn•th. Like an angel directing the clouds, the late Ulugh Kh•n (May God make him drink out of the fountain of His forgiveness!) was appointed to lead the victorious army. Resolved to conquer, the clouds moved towards the sea; and as the foundations of the temple were water-deep, they wished to bring its summit to the water also.

When the Imperial army reached the City of that land,* the sword of the
righteous monarch completely conquered the province, which, adorned like a bride, had escaped so many emperors of the past. Much blood was shed. A general invitation was issued to all the beasts and birds of the forest to a continuous feast of meat and drink. In the marriage banquet, at which the Hind•s were sacrificed, animals of all kinds ate them to their satisfaction.

Then the Kh•n-i ‘Azam* moved his army towards the sea.* Round the temple of Somn•th, which is the centre of Hind• worship, he drew a circle with his troops, and planted his Khat•• spear so high towards the centre that its sharp point almost pierced the sky. The banner of Isl•m was elevated to the equator, while every arch emerging from the two semi-circles, into which the army was divided, without fail passed its arrow through the black dot of infidelity.

So the temple of Somn•th was made to bow towards the Holy Mecca; and as the temple lowered its head and jumped into the sea, you may say that the building first said its prayers and then had a bath. The idols, who had fixed their abode midway to the House of Abraham (Mecca), and there waylaid stragglers,* were broken to pieces in pursuance of Abraham’s tradition.* But one idol, the greatest of them all, was sent by the maliks to the Imperial Court, so that the breaking of their helpless god may be demonstrated to the idol-worshipping Hind•s.

It seemed as if the tongue of the Imperial sword explained the meaning of the text: ‘So he (Abraham) broke them (the idols) into pieces except the chief of them, that haply they may return to it.’* Such a pagan country, the Mecca of the infidels, now became the Med•na of Islam. The followers of Abraham now acted as guides in place of the Brahman leaders. The robust-hearted true believers rigorously broke all idols and temples wherever they found them. Owing to the war, ‘takb•r,’ and ‘shah•dat’ was heard on every side; even the idols by their breaking affirmed the existence of God. In this ancient land of infidelity the call to prayers rose so high that it was heard in Baghd•d and Mad••n (Ctesiphon) while the ‘Al•• proclamation (Khutba) resounded in the dome of Abraham and over the water of Zamzam.*

As to the city of Nahrw•la and the city of Kamb•yat (Cambay), which the sea raises its head to swallow up, as well as the other cities situated on the coast—though the sea beats against them with force, yet the wave of the Muslim army did not turn to the sea to wash off the contamination of infidelity from the land, but cleansed the ground by a deluge of infidel blood; for if blood is not clean, and cannot cleanse, yet the sword is a purifier; and the sword having overcome the infidels, their blood became pure also.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

This is bad enough but consider what a modern secular historian said to cover up these crimes:

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Is this the trumpet-call of an aggressive and bloated fanaticism or the excruciating melody of the tragic muse? Was Am•r Khusrau praising the idol-breakers or bewailing their lack of true faith? It must not be forgotten that a courtier presenting an official history to the Sultan had no freedom either of opinion or speech; and Am•r Khusrau emphatically expresses his willingness to recast his book according to the Sultan’s wishes.

But as Mohammed ibn-i Khawend Shah (Mirkhond), the author of Rauzatus Safa,
remarks: “the official historian should by hints, insinuations, overpraise and such other devices as may come to hand, never fail to express his true opinion, which, while remaining undetected by his illiterate patron, is sure to be understood by the intelligent and the wise.”

Am•r Khusrau may, or may not, have wept tears of blood over the fall of an ancient civilization; but his mode of expression leaves little doubt that the greed of gain and not the service of the Lord was the inspiring motive of the invaders.

<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

This historian is MUHAMMAD HABIB, B.A. (Oxon) 1931 Professor of History, Muslim University, Aligarh.

But the following quote from him takes the cake:

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->If Am•r Khusrau had been writing in the age of the Puranas, he would have represented Al•udd•n as an incarnation of Vishnu and described his opponents as malicious demons. That is how the Aryans blackened the character of their enemies and justified their aggression. A modern writer would have to white-wash the same cruelties by talking of liberty, justice, the duty of elevating backward races and, with solemn unconscious humour, advanced the most humane arguments to justify the inhumanities of war.

But Am•r Khusrau was not a hypocrite; he saw life through plain glasses and the traditions of his day made hypocrisy unnecessary. The Deccan expeditions had one clear object—the acquisition of horses, elephants, jewels, gold and silver. Why tell lies? The Mussalmans had not gone there on a religious mission; they had neither the time nor the inclination to enroll converts and they were too good soldiers to let irrelevant considerations disturb their military plans.

Of course the name of God was solemnly pronounced. The invaders built mosques wherever they went and the call to prayer resounded in many a wilderness and many a desolated town. This was their habit. Of anything like an idealistic, even a fanatic, religious mission the Deccan invasions were completely innocent.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Yes yes my dear historian but who created this "wilderness" and the "desolated towns" in the first place???

See it was just their "habit"...nothing fanatical about it!!

COMPLETELY innocent!!!

<!--emo&:furious--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/furious.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='furious.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--emo&:furious--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/furious.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='furious.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--emo&:furious--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/furious.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='furious.gif' /><!--endemo-->

[Guest]

Ah the biochemists strike again... I mean the eminent historians <!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tongue.gif' /><!--endemo--> ...

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Historians protest remarks against Tipu</b>
Special Correspondent

NEW DELHI:

Several historians on Monday protested the remarks by Karnataka's Minister for Higher Education D.H. Shankaramurthy that Tipu Sultan was "anti-Kannada" as he made Persian the language of administration.

Under the banner of the Safdar Hashmi Memorial Trust, the historians said in a statement: "The integrity of history books needs to be protected against all such ignorant and partisan onslaughts."

The statement was issued in response to Mr. Shankaramurthy's comment that Tipu Sultan should be spurned by all patriotic people of Karnataka as he replaced Kannada with Persian in administration. Citing Tipu Sultan's letters and the orders passed by him, the statement said there were numerous references to officials and clerks appointed for keeping records in Kannada and Marathi in the treasury and other government offices.

On the Minister's desire that Tipu Sultan's name be expunged from all textbooks, the historians said: "Such a desire suits only those who have scant respect for the memory of India's long fight against foreign invaders or colonial rule. It is inconceivable that the people of Karnataka, and of India, can consign to oblivion a man like Tipu Sultan, a true martyr, whom they have held up as a hero, while the British regard him as their most redoubtable opponent."

<b>The signatories to the statement include R.S. Sharma, A.R. Kulkarni, D.N. Jha, Sabyasachi Bhattacharya, Shireen Moosvi, M.G.S. Narayanan, Kesavan Valuthath, K.M. Shrimali, Irfan Habib, Arjun Dev, Biswamoy Pati, Suvira Jaiswal, R.C. Thakaran and Amar Farooqui.</b>
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->D.N. Jha<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What a surprise. This guy is around working full time from California to Karnataka.

[ramana]

If you read most accounts of Indian history you do not get a sense for the driving impulse of the various kingdoms and the dynasties that come and go. As an example no book mentions why the Nizam was able to create a kingdom in Telangana region of modern day Andhra Pradesh, that his was a successor state to the Shia Qutb Shahi state which in turn was a successor to the Kaktiya Kingdom which could trace its origns to previous rulers like the Ikshvakus and Satavahanas. Again we can see same pattern with Delhi. Why did Delhi become the political center of the India throughout ages?

Why is this so?


The end result is that Indian rulers come and go without purpose across the canvas of Indian history and it all appears ahistorical. By not mentioning hte continuity in Indian history across dynasties and religions the history writers have made sure that there is no sense of unity of purpose and the people get considered as without a sense of history ie sheep to be slaughtered or ruled. This is important to understand as the AIT.