Hindu has covered us today:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>âPurge history books of biasâ </b>
Staff Reporter
NEW DELHI: The former Union Minister, Subramanian Swamy, has charged that wilful distortions in writing Indian history have been occurring solely due to state support since the British times.
âThe British rulers wrote our history to divide and rule us. But what is the excuse of Indian governments after Independence to continue with the same policy?â
He was delivering the valedictory address at a three-day international conference on âIndian History, Civilisation and Geopoliticsâ here on Sunday.
Dr. Swamy said myths spread by biased historians overtook Indian history, while actual events and places had been declared myths.
He demanded a reorientation of the state policy to purge history books of a false chronology of ancient India and myths such as Aryan invasion and racial divide of north and south Indians. colonial biases.â
<b>Vicious myth </b>
Quoting dozens of slokas, scholar S. Ram Mohan said: â[That] women had no rights in ancient India is a vicious myth spread by colonial historians.
âThe reality is that all the three ancient code books of Hindus â Manu Smriti, Narad Smriti and Yajnavalkya Smriti â have a common theme of social welfare and an egalitarian society, with a very high status assigned to women and the deprived sections.â<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
http://www.hindu.com/2009/01/13/stories/...360900.htm
Up.
Please upload videos and any material.
Thanks,
ramana
Paper presented by Shivaji Singh, Keynote speaker at ICIH-2009. He busts the myth, spread by Hegel, that "Indians had no sense of history."
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Contending paradigms of Indian history: Did India lack historical agency?</b>
SHIVAJI SINH
ICIH2009
jointly organized by
Indic Studies Foundation, California, and
ABISY, New Delhi
at
India International Center, New Delhi
Jan. 9-11, 2009
As you all know, history is indeed very important. As a major portion of collective social memory and as a significant segment of effective social psyche, history acts as a vehicle of culture and civilization from generation to generation. History of a people shapes and defines the people's social identity.
It invariably provides lessons to learn from past experiences, and acts as a source of morale in times of distress. This is why a continued presence of a positive historical consciousness is considered to be essential for any living and vibrant society.
Unfortunately, however, today in India history is unable to play its expected useful role of keeping the people emotionally integrated, and psychologically buoyant and proud of their heritage. Instead, it is fast turning to be perilous - a major source of division and discard, an unnecessary burden on memory, and an impediment to progress.
This is because there have come into existence several versions of Indian history that contradict each other creating great confusion. History is admittedly an established discipline, but the world of Indian historical discourse has become so chaotic today that it would be a travesty of terms to call it a discipline.
How did the history of India come to such a chaotic condition? And, is there any way out of this mess? These two questions are, I think, the most important ones demanding immediate attention of all scholars who care for the discipline called history and believe in its usefulness to society.
Let us have a broad look on the early history of history in India.
<b>The antiquity and pre-modern stages of Indian historical tradition</b>
Ancient Indians had a sense of history and historical tradition that goes back to the Rigvedic times. The Rigveda evidences the presence of three literary genres of historical nature: royal and priestly eulogies, gathas, and narasamsis â all prevalent in those days, like the riks, in oral form constituting a floating mass of literature.
A verse of the Rigveda (IX.10.3) clearly states that kings are graced (añjate) with eulogies (prasastibhih). Several danastutis (hymns composed in praise of liberalities shown by kings to their priests) also tend to take the form of eulogies.
Eulogies were composed for priestly families too. Rigveda VII.33 is an eulogy of the Vasishthas. Rigveda III.33, which is a dialogue between Visvamitra and the rivers Vipas (Beas) and Sutudri (Sutlej), is rightly taken by some scholars to be an eulogistic anecdote of the Visvamitras.
The term 'gatha', in the Rigveda, normally means 'song', but it gradually develops a more special sense in later portions of the text and stands for songs of historical or legendary content. The word 'Narasamsa', from which Narasamsi is derived, denotes according to Yaska 'praises celebrating men' (Yena narah prasasyante sa narasamso mantrah. Nirukta IX.9).
The difference between gathas and Narasamsis was that while a gatha could relate to human as well as non-human beings (as in Indra- gatha, Yajña- gatha, etc.), the narasamsis pertained only to human beings.
In the later Vedic age, three new forms of historical narratives also came into existence. They were: Akhyana, Itihasa and Puranaa. Akhyana literally means 'the communication of a previous event'. Composed in the form of short historical episodes, Akhyanas had become quite popular in the later Vedic times.
The Aitareya Brahmana (III.25.1) refers to Akhyana-vids (a class of literary men who had specialized in Akhyana literature).
The word 'Itihasa', literally means 'verily thus it happened'. It appears probably for the first time in the Atharvaveda (XV.6.4) but becomes very prevalent in the later Vedic period itself. It repeatedly occurs in several Brahmanas such as the Satapatha, Jaiminiya, Gopatha, etc.
Before the term 'Itihasa' acquired a broader sense of all forms of historical narratives, including even law and administration, as in Kautilya's Arthasastra (I.5), it denoted only Puravrittam (history in the narrow sense of the term). This, as V. S. Pathak rightly points out, is implied by the Nirukta (X.26) and explicitly stated by the Brihaddevata (IV.46).
That, a distinction was made between Itihasa and Akhyana, is also attested to by the Satapatha Brahmana (XI.1.6.9) wherein it is told that Daivasuram (the war between Devas and Asuras) is related partly as Akhyana and partly as Itihasa.
The term 'Purana', according to its etymology as provided by the Vayu Purana, means 'that which lives from ancient times' (yasmatpura hyanatidam Puranam, Vayu P., I.203). As a form of legendary lore, Puranas may have existed from pre-Vedic period, that is, from times of antiquity even prior to the composition of Rigvedic mantras.
The Atharvaveda (XI.7.24) refers to Puranam along with Richah (mantras), Samani (chants), Yajusha (formulae) and Chhandansi (meters) indicating, thereby, that Purana was fully recognized as a distinct literary category by its time. By the time of the Chhandogya Upanishad, Purana definitely denoted actual book or books (Chhandogya Up. VII.1.2). According to A. D. Pusalker, a well-known scholar in the field of Epic and Puranic studies, "in the later Vedic Age, Itihasa preponderated over Purana, but gradually the latter asserted itself".
By the close of the Vedic period, we meet with two additional genres of historical compositions. They are known as Vamsas and Akhyayikas. Literally meaning 'lineages', the Vamsas focus our attention on genealogies rather than on history as such. A further development of this species of literature is indicated by the distinction made between Vamsas and Vamsanucharita, the former relating to the genealogy of gods and rishis and the latter pertaining to the sequence of dynasties.
Both Vamsas and Vamsanucharitas were later assimilated in the Puranas. They were taken to constitute two of the five characteristic features (Pañcha-lakshanas) of an ideal Purana. Akhyayikas denoted shorter Akhyanas. Both Akhyayikas and Akhyanas were later liberally utilized to swell from time to time the body of the Mahâ¬bhâ¬rata as also of the Ramayana, the two most well-known ancient Indian Itihasa works.
The early medieval period witnessed a further flowering of Indian historical tradition. Several historical works such as Bana Bhattaâs Harsha-Charita, Bilhanaâs Vikramankdeva-Charita, and Jayanakaâs Prithviraja-Vijaya, etc., were written in this period by historians mostly attached to royal courts. Persons of royal blood too, even if rarely, distinguished themselves as a historian. Somesvar III Bhulokamalla, the son and successor of Vikramaditya VI of the Chalukya dynasty of Kalyani, is an example. Known mainly for his famous work Manasollasa, he had also written a biography of his father entitled Vikramankabhyudaya.
The Indian historical tradition, thus, continued to develop and proliferate unabated during several millennia from its beginnings in Rigvedic times down to the end of the medieval period. As a result, such a rich and huge mass of historical literature came into existence that one could not possibly adequately describe it without classifying it into some sort of categories.
Attempts have been made to classify it according to its sources (like Vedic, Buddhist and Jain) or in accordance with its chronology and provenance. However, all such efforts present difficulties for Indian historical tradition is one-piece, a 'whole' that cannot be segmented into parts.
Even A. K. Warder, who assumes that Indian historiography becomes increasingly regional during the medieval period, admits that "it (always) derives from the universal ancient pauranika history".
Why is Indian historical tradition so unique? Where is its wholeness derived from? Let us find out.
<b>Uniqueness and wholeness of the Indian historical tradition</b>
A characteristic feature of Indian tradition, that has played the central role in shaping its historical paradigm, is acceptance of the existence of an Ultimate Reality or Essence of which âRitaâ, âSatyaâ and âDharmaâ are respectively the mental perception, verbal expression and practical application. In Indian tradition, therefore, historical events and processes are judged in the light of their conformity with Rita, Satya and Dharma, the three modes of the Ultimate Reality.
Let me explain this feature a bit more. The cornerstone of Indian traditional value-system is the concept called Rita. It is difficult to find a concept equivalent to it in any other language or society. Its renderings in English as 'Eternal Order' or 'Cosmic Order' are inadequate.
The ancient Greek vocable 'anagki' and the ancient Chinese term 'tao' appear to resemble the word Rita in meaning, but they too fail to fully express its connotation. The concepts 'Lex naturalis' and 'archetype' of Western thought are comparable but not equivalent in conception to âRitaâ. In fact, in time- span âRitaâ is eternal, in its expanse it is cosmic, and by nature it is proper, true, divine, pious, religious, perfect, glorious, and noble all rolled into one.
It is also worth noting that Rita, Satya, and Dharma are not different entities. They are three modes of the same Reality. Commenting on Rigveda 10.190.1, Sayana clearly states that Rita is another name of Satya (Ritamiti Satyanam). Rita is the mental perception of the Reality (Ritam manasam yatharthasankalpanam), and Satya is the verbal expression of that Reality (Satyam vachikam yatharthasankalpanam). In the motto: Satyamevajayate nanritam (Mundaka Upanishad, 3.1.6) Anrita is placed in opposition to Satya which also confirms the identity of Rita and Satya.
As Rita and Satya are identical, Satya and Dharma too are one and the same entity. "Verily, that which is Dharma is Satya" (yo vai sa Darmah Satyam vai), confirms the Brihadaranyak Upanishad (1.4.14). When the Reality transforms itself from mental perception and verbal expression into practical application it is called Dharma.
Events and processes that constitute the subject matter of history consist basically of human activities performed through Mana (thinking), Vachana (speaking) and Karma (acting). According to Indian value-system, perceptions, statements and actions are right only to the extent they conform to Rita, Satya and Dharma respectively.
Ultimate Reality or Essence in its three modes, thus, is the standard by which all human actions and activities, that is to say, entire history is to be judged or evaluated.
It is this concern for Satya (truth), a mode of Rita and Dharma, that compels Kalhana, the author of the Rajatarangini, to unequivocally emphasize the importance of objectivity in historical interpretations. "That man of quality alone is praiseworthy", says he, "who is above (the feelings of) love and hatred and whose intellect remains steady while relating the meaning of (the facts of) the past".
Slaghyah sa eva gunavana ragadveshabahishkritah,
Bhutarthakathane yasya stheyasyeva Sarasvati
(Rajatarangini, 1.7)
<b>A 'superb' colonial myth: Ancient Indians lacked the sense of history</b>
The colonial era of Indian history was an era of historical myth-making. Innumerable myths were created and propagated to falsify history with a view to change Indian psyche and denationalize Indian identity.
The Aryans constituted a race of people culturally backward and barbarous but physically vigorous and bellicose! They were the sole possessor of horses and horse-drawn chariots that provided them superior maneuverability in battles against their enemies! They invaded India, destroyed the Indus cities and drove away their occupants, the Dravidians, to South India!
Indian people had always been ruled by despotic and tyrannical rulers! The Indian society was static; it remained substantially unchanged throughout its long span of existence until the arrival of the British! The root cause of India's backwardness was its (Hindu) religion! India as a concept never existed till the British imperialists invented it! So on and so forth; the list of colonial myths is endless.
Sarvapalli Radhakrishnan succinctly puts it: "The West tried its best to persuade India that its philosophy is absurd, its art puerile, its poetry uninspired, its religion grotesque and its ethics barbarous".
Most of these myths have been exploded and the ones remaining are in the process of meeting the same fate, despite the efforts of the intellectuals who still uphold the colonial paradigm and try to redefine and reproduce the myths in a new jargon. However, the myth according to which ancient Indians had no sense of history may be said, in a sense, to be a 'superb' myth of a sort for it continues and it continues as a commonplace view!
The origin of the myth is traced back to German philosopher G.W.F Hegel (1770-1831) and his Euro-centrism. Hegel is on record to have stated: "India not only has old books of religion and brilliant works of poetry but also old codes of law ... and yet it has no history". He indeed suffered from Euro-centrism, a bias shared by many scholars of the colonial era.
Rajeev Malhotra has exhaustively quoted from his writings to demonstrate Hegel's Euro-centrism. I would like to add that Hegel was still more parochial in his outlook for he takes the Mediterranean region, not Europe as a whole, to be the pivot of historical transformations. In fact, it was partly his peculiar metaphysic and his obsession with thesis-antithesis-synthesis dialectic and largely his ignorance of ancient Indian literature that came in his way of recognizing the age-old Indian historical tradition. Be that as it may, his metaphysic and his dialectic are long since discredited.
Years ago, Bertrand Russell had rightly observed:
"I cannot see any justification, on the basis of his [Hegel's] own metaphysic, for the view that world history repeats the transitions of the dialectic, yet that is the thesis which he developed in his Philosophy of History. It was an interesting thesis, giving unity and meaning to the revolutions of human affairs. Like other historical theories, it required, if it was to be made plausible, some distortions of facts and considerable ignorance. Hegel, like Marx, and Spengler after him, possessed both these qualifications. It is odd that a process which is represented as cosmic should all have taken place on our planet, and most of it near the Mediterranean. Nor is there any reason, if reality is timeless, why the latter part of the process should embody higher categories than their earlier parts -- unless one were to adopt the blasphemous supposition that the Universe was gradually learning Hegel's philosophy.â
Myths have their own life-time, their own duration of existence. And, when, as in the present case, a myth is created by an eminent philosopher like Hegel, whose influence by the end of the nineteenth century had made most of the intellectuals of America and England largely Hegelian, it has got to last long.
But, the real reason for its longevity lies in British colonial interests in India that wanted to show that the Indians were backward, living in prehistory and so in dire need of foreign help to modernize and begin history. The rest of the story as to how the Colonial Power launched on a major project of creating 'a class of persons Indian in blood and colour, but English in taste, in opinions, words and intellect' is too well-known to be repeated here.
Writing years after Independence, A. K. Warder notes:
"The standard imperialist version of Indian history, worked out during the colonial period, is now, most remarkably, taken for granted among modern Indian historians of almost all persuasions, not least among them the 'Marxists' (who in this respect remain Hegelians; S. A. Dange is an honourable exception), as well as among academic historians in all other countries, again regardless of political persuasions."
In fact, as it is said, one can recognize a cat only if he/she has a picture of a cat in mind, a mental model or an idea of the cat, so to say. The history taught in the colonial era infused in the minds of Indians the modern idea of history which is European in origin. This idea of history had sprouted in Graeco-Roman tradition and developed under the shadow of the 18th century European Enlightenment.
It is very much different from the ancient Indian indigenous sense of history, known as Itihasa, that had originated and developed in ancient Indian philosophic-cultural context. History, as we know, 'develops in close juxtaposition and with constant interactions of associated scheme of ideas'. Since, the formations of the ancient Indian sense of history and the modern European idea of history had occurred in different cultural-intellectual environments, it was natural that they differed in their tone and tenor and more particularly in their ethos.
As people all over the world, including India, have at present the modern idea of history in their minds, they fail to recognize ancient Indian historical tradition or recognize it only to the extent to which it anticipates the modern view.
<b>Comparing the ancient Indian and modern ideas of history and their validity</b>
Despite the fact that the modern idea of history is now globally accepted and the indigenous Indian sense of history is rarely shared by historians even in India, it would be worthwhile, I believe, to compare the two concepts of history and judge their validity purely from an epistemological point of view.
One significant difference between the two is that while ancient Indian indigenous history, called Itihasa, aimed at man's self-fulfillment and self-realization, the history current today has either only vague objectives like furtherance of freedom, rationalism and individualism or a hidden agenda to support this or that political ideology.
The other important difference is that while Itihasa interpreted historical change in terms of reasons, not causes, current history, under the impact of positivism and other modern concepts, emphasizes causality and value-neutrality.
Now, a point to ponder: Is the notion of causal explanation, in which explanation is based on antecedent causes and conditions, applicable to history? I doubt it. The central concept of history, it must be noted, is action, not behaviour. 'Behaviour is a quasi-physicalistic, physiological and infra-rational category.' Action, on the other hand, is 'a purposive, goal-oriented activity or conduct.'
A human action may be reasonable or unreasonable, right or wrong, just or unjust and the like, but it can be interpreted only in terms of its reasons, not causes. 'Intentions, purposes and motives do not âcauseâ actions, for, firstly, they are not identifiable separately from them, and secondly, they are semantically related to them.'
And, what about the doctrine of value-neutrality, the other postulate involved in modern idea of history? The notion of value-fact dichotomy is totally wrong. Of course, there is a distinction between fact and value, between descriptive and prescriptive, between âisâ and âaughtâ, but it is a distinction without dichotomy. Facts and values are the two modes of the same reality. 'Facts qua facts do not exist. What appears to be a purely factual statement contains an implicit evaluation. A fact can only be understood in terms of a corresponding norm.'
Thus, we see that even from a purely epistemological point of view, the modern idea of history is inadequate. In traditional Indian history, on the other hand, value-fact dichotomy is not accepted. Historical events and processes are judged, as I have discussed above, on the basis of their conformity with Rita, Satya and Dharma, the three modes of the Ultimate Reality or Essence.
<b>Confusion in contemporary Indian historical discourse</b>
Indian historical discourse is in a state of chaotic confusion and disarray today. Several paradigms of Indian history are endlessly contending with each other for their justification and supremacy. As a result, we have several versions of Indian history current simultaneously. An impartial person willing to know something about India's past is in a fix, unable to decide as to which one is a trustworthy version. In such a situation, the very utility of history for society is becoming doubtful.
Until recently, books on historiography described only three paradigms of Indian history: Imperialist, Nationalist, and Marxist. Today we have at least as many more. The colonial era is long since over, but the imperialist paradigm is continuing, albeit it is now called 'Western Elitist'. The Marxist paradigm is still alive despite the fall of Marxism. It is now more generally known as 'Secular Marxist'. The Nationalist paradigm has tremendously refined its historical models making them more and more scientific. However, it has been mysteriously renamed as 'Hindu Nationalist'!
Among the new ones, the most well-know is the Subaltern paradigm. It emerged in 1980s inspired mostly by Eric Stokes' historical writings. It started with the basic assumption that history contains many more complexities and paradoxes than what the 'monolithic and dogmatic reconstructions of the past' have revealed so far. It has apparently borrowed ideas and terminology from Italian philosopher and political theorist Antonio Gramsci (including the term 'subaltern' itself) but given them a new context and meaning.
Although there is no umbilical cord connecting Subalternists and Marxists, who are in fact very much critical of each other, the elite versus subaltern theme is modeled more or less after the Marxist bourgeoisie versus proletariat. In my view, however, the subaltern paradigm of history in Indian context is a reflection of a larger ongoing literary movement fostering identity politics of the left-behind sections of the Indian society or what is termed as the marginalized social groups. In Hindi literature, it goes by such names as Dalita Vimarsha and Nari Vimarsha.
The upholders of this post-modern historical paradigm analyze contemporary Indian historiography in two categories: neo-colonialist and neo-nationalist. They are critical of both the categories for they find that both share an elitist perspective that wrongly paints the significant role and contributions of the subaltern groups as a mere response to an elite inspiration, influence or guidance.
Elitist historiography, according to them, 'renders invisible the quotidian experience of ordinary people'. They, therefore, plead for extending the historical narrative in scope "not only to make room for the pasts of the so-called peoples without history but to address the historicality of everyday life as well."
However, had it been only a question of extending the scope of historical narrative, it would not have been a matter of concern. But, of late, Subalternists have started rejecting what they call "the imagined-into-reality framework of the Indian nation" and raising several other such alarming theoretical issues.
Another paradigm newly emerging in Indian historical discourse is inspired by the 'Annales School'. Founded a century ago by French historians, this school has been quite influential in setting the agenda for historiography not only in France but in other countries as well, particularly in Italy, Poland and Venezuela. Although it has maintained its leftist leaning all along, its focus has been shifting from time to time. At one time it gave serious attention to the role of mentalities in history, linking them with changing social conditions, but now that has been almost given up.
However, taking a long-term view of history, emphasizing social rather than political issues, a concern for marginalized peoples, wide range of interests and differing methods of approach may be said to be the hallmark of the Annales School. The Annales School's approach to history has started influencing Indian historians. Harbans Mukhia of JNU, Delhi, who has edited (jointly with Maurice Aymard of Maison des Sciences de l'Homme, Paris) two volumes on French studies in history, is, to my knowledge, perhaps the most vocal admirer of the Annales School. S. Settar's books âInviting Deathâ (New York: Brill, 1988) and âPursuing Deathâ (Dharwad: Institute of Art History, Karnatak University, 1990) too have an Annales' imprint although not acknowledged openly.
The 'Deconstructionist', though not a paradigm in the technical sense of the term, is yet another post-modern and post-structuralist historical 'consciousness' that has added to the current complexity and confusion in Indian historical discourse. Its roots go back to a school of philosophy that originated in France in late 1960s mainly through the writings of its chief proponent Jacques Derrida.
Derrida's stand is based on two of his basic perceptions: one, dichotomous categories such as mind/body, sacred/profane, signifier/signified, etc., that are generally accepted and used by philosophers and other scholars in their expositions, are arbitrary; and the other, all such expositions contain implicit hierarchies that impose a sort of order on realty subordinating, partly hiding and even totally excluding from our view many of its aspects. His intellectual efforts were mostly aimed at exposing and challenging these dichotomies and hierarchies that come in our way of a proper understanding of reality. 'Deconstruction' is the designation Derrida gave to his efforts in this direction and to the procedure he adopted in making them.
Although the deconstructionists coming after Derrida have sufficiently modified and refined the methods of deconstruction, the aim of its application in historical analysis remains the same. Looking in a broader perspective, it may be said that they have, in fact, brought into sharp focus the old problem of the extent of correspondence â or rather, isomorphism or one-to-one correspondence - between historical reality (history as it happened in some space-time context) and the written history (constructed or reconstructed by the historian).
They do not deny the existence of historical reality, which nobody can do, but in tune with the spirit of the post-modern age, they challenge "the old modernist certainties of historical truth and methodological objectivity, as applied by disinterested historians". They raise questions about the legitimacy of empiricism in constituting history as a separate epistemology (that is, a special form of knowledge) as also about the role and use of historianâs theoretical and explanatory frameworks in historical understanding.
The confusion is worse confounded since all these different historical paradigms are current simultaneously. What David Harlan observes in reference to postmodern American historiography is equally, if not more, true in context of contemporary Indian historiography: "If we ask, 'what is historical writing?' the answer can only be 'there is this kind of historical writing, and that kind, and then again that kind." The greatest problem before a student of Indian history today is to cope with such a situation. Shall the concept of validity become altogether irrelevant to history? Is there any way out of this dilemma? I believe that there is one, and now I come to that.
<b>A basic knowledge of Indian psyche essential for understanding Indian history</b>
Long ago, in his famous book âThe Idea of Historyâ published posthumously in 1946, R. G. Collingwood (1889-1943) had stated that to know the past the historian must re-enact it in his own mind. He tried to explain his point by several examples. For instance, he said, suppose an historian has certain edict of an emperor before him. 'Merely reading the words and being able to translate them', said he, 'does not amount to knowing their historical significance. In order to do that he must envisage the situation with which the emperor was trying to deal, and he must envisage it as that emperor envisaged it' (emphasis added).
His statement, as expected, invited several objections. It was argued, for instance, that "an act of thought by becoming subjective ceases to be objective, and thus, by becoming present ceases to be past." Collingwood continued to answer the objections throughout his life and although he could not satisfy the objectors, he succeeded in making out an important point: an action can be judged properly only in the light of the thoughts and intentions leading to it.
Can anybody judge history, which consists mostly of individual and social actions, without knowing the thoughts and intentions of the historical actor or actors concerned? The answer is unequivocal: one cannot. Despite differences in historical orientations and paradigms scholars in general are unanimous on this point.
Thus, Alum Munslow, even though far from Collingwood in time, space and historical perceptions, echoes the same feeling. "The most basic function of the historian", writes he, "is to understand, and explain in a written form, the connections between events and human intention or agency in the past."Â It follows, then, that Indian history cannot be understood and explained without a basic knowledge of the specific structure or rather architecture of Indian psyche, the fountain of all sorts of intentions commonly shared by Indians.
The two most important 'building blocks' of this architecture are Bharatiya Chitta and Mana, that have shaped the psyche of a common Indian, the fundamental source of all his thoughts, intentions and actions. Chitta and Mana are not one and the same in connotation although both are generally rendered as psyche in English. They must not be confused with what the Annalistes designate as 'mentality' too. These are characteristically Indian concepts. For understanding them, we must begin with the Indian notion of 'Antahakarana' or inner consciousness, the human faculty that deals with almost all non-tangible matters. Antahakarana is said to have four constituent parts (together known as Antahakarana -Chatushtaya). They are Mana, Chitta, Buddhi and Ahankara related to each other in a hierarchical order.
The most potent of the four is Ahankara (self-awareness), the sense of being, the consciousness that 'I am' or 'I exist' (in Sanskrit 'asmi' from which the term 'asmita' meaning identity is derived). Ordinarily a person perceives his self-consciousness in terms of his physical and social being, and identifies his self with his body (dehatma-buddhi). This is an instinctive human tendency present everywhere and in all ages. But, then, there is an ideal of self-awareness too, 'which men accept, as distinct from their actual and habitual self-awareness', and which is 'generally derived from the cultural tradition to which they belong and varies accordingly.'
In Indian tradition individual self is taken to be non-different from the Essence or Ultimate Reality. This Ultimate Reality is described by many names like Brahma, Isvara, Paramatma, etc., and worshiped as Godhead under various denominations. In essence it is ever-present (Sat), pure consciousness (Chit) and limitless bliss (Å¡nanda). Being part of the Ultimate Reality, the individual self too shares all the three attributes. It is deathless, but bonded by the body and Ahankara, its consciousness is diluted and bliss jeopardized. The diluted consciousness is called Chitta as against pure consciousness which is Chit.
Both chit and chitta are derived from a basic concept chiti and all these terms go back to Rigvedic times. Although the concept is living in Indian tradition as attested to by the popularity of a large number of names like Chidambara, Chinmaya, Chidakasa, Sachchidananda, etc., very little work has been done on this significant cluster of concepts. To my knowledge, Deendayal Upadhyaya is the first thinker who has repeatedly drawn our attention to the concept of chiti. Fortunately, now some institutions like the Research and Development Foundation for Integral Humanism and Deendayal Shodh Sansthan are making commendable efforts in properly explaining chiti and related concepts.
Mana is also an old Rigvedic concept. While the function of Chitta is reflection, that of Mana is paying attention. Chitta is more powerful than Mana and if Mana finds something pleasurable or desirable Chitta often takes it over from Mana. However, the most important point to be noted is that a considerable part of Chitta and Mana, as also of Ahankara and Buddhi, is determined by the geo-cultural environment in which it develops, although since human being is a human being, different from other zoological beings, a portion of his Antahakarana-Chatushtaya ever remains universal as well.
Indian history stands distorted badly because the so-called 'motivated' and 'committed' historians have been intentionally distorting it continuously since the colonial times to foster their political, religious or other ideological interests. This is beyond doubt and by now well-known. But what is not so well-realized is the fact that even those historians who cannot be categorized as 'motivated' or 'committed' have brought in considerable aberration in Indian history because being ignorant of Indian psyche they have failed to recognize connections between events and human intention or agency in pre-modern Indian history.
<b>Judging Indian history from a wrong angle: A few illustrations</b>
The Aryans were a "non-urbanized people and semi-barbarous" who destroyed the non-Aryan Harappan Civilization and "the Rigveda is the epic of destruction of one of the great cultures of the ancient world". This is the view adopted and expressed in the prestigious UNESCO publication entitled History of Mankind, Vol. 1.
One may not wonder on the assertion of the Aryan Invasion Theory in this volume for it was published at a time when that theory was accepted as a Gospel truth. But it is certainly surprising to hear that the early Vedic people were 'semi-barbarous' people. Can anybody degrade a people as semi-barbarous who have the honour of bequeathing to posterity a literary composition like the Rigveda considered to be one of the earliest, if not the earliest, human achievement of its kind, and which contains high philosophical thoughts of several enlightened souls like Rishi Dirghatamas?
The reason for this anomaly lies in application of a totally alien-to-Indian-psyche definition of 'civilization' in Indian history. This definition, still prevalent among historians and archaeologists, does not entitle non-urban peoples like the Vedic Aryas (who were erroneously supposed to be merely a village folk) to be called civilized. The definition is based on a materialist conception of history. It was initially suggested by Lewis H. Morgan in 1877 in his book: Ancient Society, or Researches in the Lines of Human Progress from Savagery through Barbarism to Civilization.
Frederick Engels adopted this definition in his famous essay: 'The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State', written in German which appeared in Zurich in 1884, wherefrom it was applied in the fields of archaeology and history by V. G. Childe. The definition is defective in several respects, but we need not elaborate the points here. Suffice it to say that a definition given from a particular view-point cannot hold good for others who do not accept that point of view.
Many more examples can be cited in which outlandish concepts, totally unfit for Indian historical circumstances, have been unduly inserted in Indian historical discourse. But, instead of listing them I would like to draw your attention to another type of unwarranted imposition on Indian history pertaining not to concepts used in it but to its very structure.
The structure of any historical narrative depends mainly on its periodization and a proper periodization must indicate the major turns and twists in the spirit of the people concerned, that is, the people whose history we are considering. But, as we know, the periodization of Indian history was done by James Mill on the basis of three major influxes of foreigners in India, be they invaders or traders/colonizers.
He divided Indian history into three periods: the Hindu, the Muslim and the British beginning respectively with the (presumed) Aryan and successive Muslim and British arrivals. But Mill was a knowledgeable person, and he was aware that he was violating the basic principle of periodization by keeping in view the outsiders not the insiders. So he propagated the myth of Indian passivity. He asserted that the Indian past had been that of an unchanging, static society. Mill's periodization still continues with cosmetic change as the ancient, the medieval and the modern. The structure of Indian history he conceived remains intact.
But, consider, for instance, the situation of India in the 17th century. We find an unmistakable upsurgence in the rise of Ramdas and Shivaji in Maharashtra, the Gurus in the Panjab and the Rajputs in Rajasthan. The upsurgence continues through time and, despite political and economic domination by Britain, finds expression in the Great Uprising of 1857 and in thoughts and actions of Dayanand Sarasvati, Ramakrishna Paramhansa, Vivekanand, Tilak, Shri Arvind, and several other saints and savants.
K. M. Munshi designates this period in Indian history as the 'Age of Modern Renaissance'. There have been periods of great expansion and efflorescence in Indian history as well as times of distress when Indians have displayed commendable resistance. The monotonous periodization: ancient, medieval and modern fails to project the paradigmatic trajectory of Indian spirit.
Finally a word about the 'Idea of India' that too has been distorted because of westernized thinking. The Idea of India and the understanding of Indian history are interconnected. If you want to know about India, you need to go through books on its history albeit a bit cautiously. But, if you want to write the history of India, you must be conversant with the personality of India before hand. Several scholars do not appear to be sensitive to this interconnection and take the issue of the 'Idea of India' lightly.
Thus, in his H. D. Sankalia Memorial Lecture entitled 'The idea of India and its heritage: The millennium challenges' (delivered in 2000), D. P. Agrawal remarks: "Nations are essentially spatio-temporal concepts, which change with time and geography. So let us not get bogged down into such mires but address the more substantive and challenging issues".
Agrawal is a senior scholar and an old friend of mine whose scholarship I highly admire despite differences of opinion on historical issues. However, I fail to see why Agrawal taking the 'Idea of India' as a millennium challenge finally whisks it away as a less-substantive or less-challenging issue. India is not just a spatio-temporal entity that has been changing with time and geography. India has a personality of its own, and the millennium challenge is to define that personality.
In his lecture, Agrawal quotes the famous words from Nehruâs Discovery of India that depict India as "an ancient palimpsest on which layer upon layer of thought and reverie had been inscribed, and yet no succeeding layer had completely hidden or erased what had been written previously". It is true that Nehru emphasized the miscegenation and accretion of cultures in India; and that was true for most of the early epochs of Indian culture.
Living at a time when the Aryan Invasion Theory was accepted as an article of faith, Nehru could not think of an original indigenous culture of India. He could not see that the ancient palimpsest he was talking about had, in fact, an original inscription engraved on it so deeply that layer upon layer of subsequent engravings could neither hide nor erase it.
Nevertheless, despite all British impact on his education and personality, Nehru had occasional glimpse of âIndiannessâ. In his Foreword to Filiozatâs India (1962), he writes: "There is an Indianness which distinguishes every part of India ... That Indianness is something unique and deeper than the external differences." Nehru felt this Indianness emotionally and intuitively but he could not locate its primary source (utsa).
In fact, Bharatiyata or Indianness cannot be defined in geographical and political terms. It can be defined only culturally as a set of values based on intuitive recognition of transcendental spirituality. Spirituality, it may be noted, is a category of perception higher than religion or even morality. Bharatiyata or Indianness is distinguished by a spiritual vision of life, which the Vedic rishis have bequeathed to humanity.
<b>Concluding message</b>
Friends, we have to rewrite the history of India afresh. In fact, we have to restore the status and prestige of Indian history that it genuinely deserves. We have to correct the image of the Vedic Å¡ryas that has been badly maligned. We have to expose colonial and post-colonial historians' ulterior motives. And, above all, we have to free Indian historical discourse from all such notions, assumptions, orientations, models and theories that are extraneous to Indian experiences of the past.
Let's, friends, always keep in mind what our enlightened Rigvedic ancestors most affectionately wished and prayed for us all in the concluding Richa of the Rigveda:
"One and the same be your resolve, And be your minds of one accord;
United be the thoughts of all, That all may happily agree."<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Here is the PowerPoint presentation about "Dharma" given by Dr. S. Ram Mohan at the ICIH-2009.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Dharma: The Value System in Indian Ethical Heritage</b>
by
DR.S.RAM MOHAN, I.R.A.S.
Financial Adviser, ICF.
Chennai.
<b>What is Dharma?</b>
Shanthi Parva (109-9-11) says about Dharma:
âIt is most difficult to define Dharma. Dharma has been explained to be that which helps the upliftment of living beings. Therefore, that which ensures the welfare of living being is surely Dharma. The learned rishis have declared âthat which sustainsâ is Dharma.â
Karna Parva (Ch.69 Verse 58) declares:
âDharma sustains the society. Dharma maintains the social order. Dharma ensures well being and progress of humanity. Dharma is surely that which fulfils these objectives.â
The ancient sage Jaimini (1-2) said:
âDharma is that which is indicated by the Vedas as conducive to the highest good.â
Manu (II:4) says:
âThere is no act of man which is free from desire; whatever a man does is the result of the impulse of desire.â
In the above verse, analyzing the human instinct, Manu states that the force behind every action of a human being is his desire (Kama). Then the question arises: what are the natural desires of man? The natural desires of man were found to be the desire to have enjoyment of wealth (material pleasure or artha) as also emotional and sexual enjoyment.
âArthaâ is explained by Vatsayana as connoting material wealth such as gold, cattle, and corn, including education or knowledge (intellectual property) necessary to earn wealth.Â
The source of all evil actions of human beings was traced to the desire for material pleasure which in turn gave rise to conflicts of interest among individuals.
<b>Types of Dharma</b>
1. Samanya Dharma: This is the general code of righteous conduct for all individuals.
2. Vyavahara Dharma: This denotes civil and criminal laws to be obeyed by the individuals, which are enforced by the exercise of the executive power of the state or through the judiciary.
3. Rajadharma or the Constitutional Law: This regulates the exercise of executive and judicial powers of the state.
A study of the Vedas and Upanishads discloses that such indications are in abundance. They are in the form of positive or negative injunctions, that is, vidhis or nishedhas.
To quote only a few:
1. Ajyestaso akanishtasa ete sambrataraha (âNo one is superior or inferior, all are brothers.â) --Â Rig Veda-Mandala 5-Sukta 60-Mantra-5
2. Tell the Turth (Satyam Vada)
3. Never tell uintruth (Nanrutham Vadet)
4. Never hurt anyone (Na himsayet)
5. Treat your mother, father and teacher as God (Matru Devo Bhava, Pitru Devao Bhava, acharya Devo Bhava) -- Taittareya Upanishad Ch.1.Lesson-11
There are several such vidhis and nishedhas. They formed the foundation of the Smritis. For instance, there is a mandate in Rajadharma to the king to give equal protection to all his subjects irrespective of his religion and punish the offender irrespective of his relationship or friendship.
This flows from the Rigvedic declaration that all are equal (see point one above). There are provisions in the Smritis for punishing the plaintiff, the defendant and the witnesses for giving false evidence, which have their source in the second and third vidhis (see the list above).Â
There are provisions which declare that acts causing injury to human beings and even to animals are offences and penalties are prescribed, the basis of which is the fourth vidhi (see the list above). The provisions making it obligatory for a son to provide maintenance to his aged parents are inspired by the fifth vidhi. There are several provisions in the Smritis specifying certain acts as forbidden and prescribing penalty for doing such acts. These follow the six vidhi.
Sage Kumarila says:
âWho are well informed? Those Whose actions are sound;
Then whose actions are sound? Of those who are well informedâ
This leaves us where we were.
Tantravartika says: âIn order for a usage to be valid, not only there must be absence of improper motives but the desire for heavenly bliss should be its basis. A true believer in the Vedas will observe it as a matter of duty.â
A very significant aspect of Dharma has been it was evolved by the people and could only be modified by the people through Dharma âparishads,â but not by the king or his government.
Thus, the foundation of Dharma has been its acceptance by the people. For the purposes of this lecture, it is sufficient to confine ourselves to Samanya Dharma and to some extent to Raja Dharma, as they are the most relevant. Though they are the oldest, they constitute the best and are everlasting Dharma.
<b>Dharma â The Six Antigens For The Mind</b>
(Manu XII â3-7-)
Three sinful mental actions:
A sin takes its origin in the mind in three ways:
(i)Â Â Coveting the property of others;
(ii)Â Thinking what is undesirable ; and
(iii)Â Adherence to evil doctrines.
These three types of sinful emotional actions give rise to four types of evil verbal actions or three types of wicked bodily actions:
The four evil verbal actions:
(i)Â Speaking an untruth;
(ii)Â Attacking another in abusive or strong language
(iii) Carrying tales against another person; and
(iv) Talking ill of others.
The three wicked bodily actions
(i)Â Â Taking what is not given;
(ii)Â Injuring living beings; and
(iii)Â Illicit intercourse with another manâs wife
MANU (XII 10 â 11):
That man is called âTridandinâ who has established three controls on his mind. These are: (i) Manodanda â control over his thoughts, (ii) Vakdanda â control over his speech and (ii) Kayadanda â control over his body.
He who exercises these three controls with respect to all created beings and wholly subdues desire and wrath, assuredly gains complete success in his life.
Nitishataka says:
Persons who render selfless service to other human beings are the greatest.
Persons who carry on their profession, avocation or business with self interest, but without exploiting and causing any injury to those who deal with them are good.
But those who give trouble to or exploit others in utter selfishness are demons in human form.
<b>Basic Aspects Of Dharma</b>
M.B. Shanti Parva (6-7-8) says:
âTruthfulness, to be free from anger, sharing wealth with others(samvibhaga) forgiveness, procreation of children from oneâs wife alone, purity, absence of enmity, straightforwardness and maintaining persons dependent on oneself are the nine rules of the Dharma of persons belonging to all the varnas (Yaj. I-122 is similar).â
According to Manu (X-63):
âAhimsa (non-violence), Satya (truthfulness), Asteya(not acquiring illegitimate wealth), Shoucham(purity), and Indriyanigraha(control of senses) are, in brief, the common Dharma for all the varnas.â
The Doctrine of Trivarga:
The Doctrine of Trivarga comprising of âDHARMA, ARTHA AND KAMAâ is the sum and substance of the Bharatiya philosophy of life, intended to strike a reasonable balance between the interests of the individual and the public interest which means the interests the of all other individuals who constitute the society or the nation concerned and includes all humanity.
It declares the supremacy of Dharma â over Artha (wealth and desire of securing material pleasure) and Kama (every type of desire including the desire for securing wealth and every type of pleasure). It is the invaluable and ever-lasting solution for all the problems of all human beings for all time to come, irrespective of their belonging or not belonging to any religion.
MANU (II 224 & IV 176):
âTo achieve welfare and happiness some declare Dharma and Artha are good. Others declare that Artha and Kama are better. Still others declare that Dharma is the best. There are also persons who declare Artha alone secures happiness. But the correct view is that the aggregate of Dharma, Artha and Kama(Trivarga) secures welfare and happiness.
However, desires (kama) and material wealth (Artha) must be rejected if contrary to Dharma.
<b>BHARATIYA VALUES</b>
<b>1. Country</b>
The name Bharata Varsha is not a mere geographical expression like the term âIndiaâ having only a physical reference. It has a deep historical significance symbolising a fundamental unity.
The Rig Veda one of the oldest literary records of humanity, reveals conscious and fervent attempts made by the rishis, those profoundly wise organisers of Hindu polity and culture, to visualise the unity of their mother-country, nay to transfigure mother earth into a living deity and enshrine her in the loving heart of the worshipper.
NA ME VANCHASTI YASHASI VIDWATVE NA CHA VA SUKHE
PRABHUTVE NAIVA VA SWARGE
MOKSHEPYANANDADAYAKE
PARANTU BHARATE JAANMA MANAVASYA CHA VA PASHOH
VIHANGASYA CHA VA JANTOHO VRIKSHA PASHANAYORAPI
âI am not enamored of fame, knowledge, luxuries of life, power, or heaven or Moksha, but my desire is to have rebirth in Bharat, as a human being or as an animal or as a bird, or as an insect or at least as a stone.â
After the defeat of Ravana in the war, Ramâs younger brother Laxmana appears to have told Rama that instead of returning to Ayodhya, the place where they were insulted and from which they were driven out, they could as well become the rulers of Lanka which was a rich country then. Rama replied thus, âMay be, Laxmana, Lanka is full of gold. But oneâs mother and the motherland are greater than Heaven.â
<b>2. Values of Life</b>
The second factor which welded the people of this Country into a nation is the system of values of life. There are many main and subsidiary values. I shall refer only to the most important of them, all of which come within the purview of âDharmaâ.
(1)Â Duty towards others
(2) (a) Samanya Dharma â A Code of Conduct Â
     for all human beings
   (b) Raja Dharma â The Duty of Rulers.
(3)Â Respect for Womanhood
(4)Â Equality (Samanata)
(5)Â Gratitude (Kritajnata)
(6) Compassion (Daya)
(7) Simple Life â Sparing use of Natural Resources
(8)Â Service (Seva â Paropakara)
(9)Â Sacrifice Tyaga)
(10) World is one Family (Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam)
Manu (Chapter X-63):
Ahimsa (non-violence), Satya(truthfulness), Asteya (not coveting the property of others), Shoucham (purity), and Indriyanigraha (control of senses) are, in brief, the common Dharma for all.
<b>WHAT IS RAJA DHARMA?</b>
This is equivalent to the modern Constitutional Law. Rajadharma regulated the power and duties of the King. The Atrisamhita declared that there were five fundamental duties of a king: âto punish the wicked, to honour (protect) the good, to enrich the treasury by just methods, to be impartial towards the litigants and to protect the kingdom â these are the five yajnas (selfless duties) to be performed by a king.â
In the happiness of the subjects lies the kingâs happiness, in their welfare his welfare; what pleases himself the king shall not consider good but whatever pleases his subjects the king shall consider good.
According to K.M.Panikkar:
âGreat importance was, therefore, attached to the coronation ceremony. Not only was it a dedication to the service of the people but also an affirmation of the covenant between the people and the ruler.
The coronation was a Diksha, a dedication, and a king bearing the crown became a Vrati, that is, a person devoting his life to a cause (in this case, the service of the people).â
Manu Smriti (IX-31) says on Raja Dharma:
YATHA SARVANI BHUTANI DHARA DHARAYATE SAMAM
TATHA SARVANI BHUTANI BIBHRATAHA PARTHIVAM VRATAM
âJust as the mother earth gives equal support to all the living beings, a king should give support to all without any discrimination.â
Narada Smriti â Dharmokosha (P-870) laid down thus:
PASHANDA NAIGAMA SHRENI PUGA VRATA GANADISHU
SAMRAKSHET SAMAYAM RAJA DURGAM JANAPADE TATHA
âThe kind should afford protection to compacts of associations of believers of Veda (Naigamas) as also of disbelievers in Veda (Pashandis) and of others.â
Loft ideals:
SAHA NAVAVATU. SAHA NAU BHUNAKTU
SAHA VIRYAM KARAVAVAHAI. TEJASVINAVADHITAMASTU.
MA VIDVISAVAHAI. OM SANTIH; SANTIH; SANTIH
âMay He(God) protect us both together, may He nourish us both together; may we work conjointly with great energy; may our study be vigorous and effective; may we not hate any one. Let there be peace, peace and peace.â
<b>3. Respect for Womanhood</b>
MANU 3(56)-(57)-(58) says:
âGods are pleased, with the house in which women are respected; in that house in which women are insulted and are made to suffer, every thing done is sure to go waste.
If in a house, daughter, the daughter-in-law, and the sisters and other women suffer, that house is sure to be destroyed. The house in which such women live happily, secures wealth and happiness.
The family in which the wife, the daughter, the sister and the daughter-in-law, etc. are not respected and in which they suffer from insults, is sure to be destroyed.â
MANU (III-62-114) says:
âThe house in which women folk are decorated with dress and jewellery, shines; otherwise, the house is sure to suffer.
Married daughters as well as daughter-in-law, young girls as also pregnant women should be served meals even before the guests.â
MANU (II-145) says:
âThe acharya is more venerable than a Upadhyaya (teacher). Father is more venerable than an acharya. But the mother is more venerable than the father.â
1. Rights of women members of joint family.
2. Misuse or dependence of the property of women prohibited.
MANU (III â51-52):
âNo father who knows (the law) must take even the smallest gratuity for his daughter; for a man who, through avarice, takes a gratuity, is a seller of his offspring.
But those (Male) relations, who in their folly live on the separate property of women,(Ex:appropriate) the beasts of burden, carriages, and cloths of women, commit sin and suffer a downfall.â
<b>3. RIGHT OF WIVES</b>
YAJ (II 115):
âWives are entitled to a share equal to that of sons at a particion. But the share is liable to be reduced by the amount of stridhana given by the husband or the father-in-law, if any, in their possession.â
<b>4. Right of Mothers</b>
SMRITI CHANDRIKA P.624
Mother is an Equal Sharer
The expression âmotherâ includes the step-mother, i.e. the other wives, if any, of the father. Their share was, whoever, liable to be reduced to the extent of stridhana in their possession.
<b>5. Rights of Daughters</b>
MANU IX 118
To maiden sisters, each of the brothers shall give out of his share, one-fourth part. Those who fail to give shall become patita.
6. STRIDHANA â Rule of Succession â it would go to the daughters.
7. Exception to Womenâs property from the law of adverse possession.
8. Special provision in favour of women regarding quantum of penalty.
9. Death sentence for rape of a woman under custody.
Kerry Brown has stated in his book, âThe essential Teachings of Hinduismâ, having ascertained the real meaning of the controversial verse in Manu.
âIn Hinduism a woman is looked after not because she is inferior or incapable but, on the contrary, because she is treasured. She is the pride and power of the society. Just as the crown jewels should not be left unguarded, neither should a woman be left unprotected. No extra burden of earning a living should be placed on women who al4readyu bear huge responsibilities in society; childbirth; child care, domestic well being and spiritual growth. She is the transmitter of culture to her children.â
4. SAMANATA : EQUALITY
RIG VEDA â MANDALA â5, SUKTA-60, MANTRA-5
AJYESTHASO AKANISHTHASA ETE
SAM BHRATARO VA VRIDHUH SOWBHAGAYA
No one is superior (ajyestaso) or inferior (akanishtasa). All are brothers (ete barataraha). All should strive for the interest of all and should progress collectively(sowbhagaya sam va vridhuhu).
Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of human rights reads thus:
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
RIGVEDA â MANDALA â10, SUKTA-191,MANTRA 4
SAMANI VA AKUTIH SAMANA HRIDAYANI VAH
SAMANAMASTU VO MANO YATHA VAH SUSAHASATI
Let there be oneness in your resolutions, hearts and minds. Let the strength to live with mutual cooperation be firm in you all.
ATHARVANAVEDA â SAMJNANA SUKTA
SAMANI PRAPA SAHA VAH ANNABHAGAH
SAMNANE YOKTRE SAHA VAHA YUNAJMI
ARAH NABHIMIVA ABHITAH
All have equal rights to articles of food and water. The yoke of the chariot of life is placed equally on the shoulders of all. All should live together in harmony supporting one another like the spokes of a wheel of the chariot connecting its rim and the hub.
<b>5.GRATITUDE (KRITAJNATA)</b>
Kaultilya in Artha Sastra
VATSO VRISHO DHENUSCHISHAM AVADHYAH
Cattle such as calves, bulls or cows, shall not be slaughtered
<b>6.COMPASSION</b>
Mahabharatha, Raja Rantideva declares
KAMAYE DUKHATAPTANAM PRANINAMARTA NASHANAM
My desire (as the) highest Dharma is to wipe out the tears from the eyes of living beings in distress.
<b>7.SIMPLE LIFE â SPARING USE OF NATURAL RESOURCES</b>
First verse of Ishavasyopanishad
All we find in this ephemeral world are created by God. Let us use them only to the minimum extent and let us not snatch the wealth belonging to another.
Swami Vivekananda who rejuvenated and propagated the greatness of Dharma, said thus;
Race after race has taken the challenge up and tried their utmost to solve the world riddle on the plane of desires. They have all failed in the past; the old ones have become extinct under the weight of wickedness and misery, which lust for power and god brings in its train, and the new ones are tottering to their fall.(India and Her problems p.12)
<b>8.SERVICE OR PAROPAKARA</b>
PAROPARAKARYA PHALANTI VRIKSHAH
PAROPAKARAYA VAHANTI NADYAH
PAROPAKARAYA DUHANTI GAVAH
PAROPAKARTHAM IDAM SHAREERAM
The trees bear fruits to serve others. The rivers flow to serve others Cows give milk to serve others. This human body is meant to serve others.
9.Tyaga - Sacrifice
Hitopadesha
Sacrifice/subordinate, individual interest to that of the family.
Sacrifice/subordinate, family interest to that of the village
Sacrifice/subordinate, the interest of the village to that of the nation
Renounce all worldly interest if you want your soul to rest in peace.
FOUR PIOUS OBLIGATIONS
Mahabharata â Adiparva Ch.120-17-20:
Every Individual should discharge four pious obligations. They are Devaruna (towards God), Pitruruna (towards parents), Rishiruna(towards teachers) and Manavaruna (towards humanity)
A man should discharge pitruruna by maintaining continuity of the family, Devaruna by worship of God, Rishiruna by the acquisition and dissemination of knowledge, and Manavaruna by every type of social service.
<b>PIOUS OBLIGATION TOWARDS THE TEACHERS (RISHIRUNA)</b>
If you are after luxury and easy going then forget the desire to secure knowledge.
If you are desirous of acquiring knowledge, then do not go after luxury and easy life during your studentship.
There is no chance for an individual who is after luxury and easy methods of securing knowledge.
There is no room to be luxurious and easy going to one who desires to acquire knowledge.
<b>IMPORTANCE OF EDUCATION</b>
Poet Bartruhari
Education is the special manifestation of man;
Education is the treasure which can be preserved without fear of loss;
Education secures material pleasure, happiness and fame;
Education is the teacher of the teacher;
Education is oneâs friend when one goes abroad
Education is God incarnate;
Education secures honour at the hands of the State, not money;
A man without education is equal to animal.
<b>MANAVARUNA
(PIOUS OBLIGATION TOWARDS HUMANITY)</b>
Few illustrations as to how the fourth pious obligation can be discharged are:
(i) Construction of wells or tanks to secure drinking water to the public in general.
(ii) Construction of water turfs at public places and on the roadside for the benefit of travellers and for animals.
(iii) Planting of trees on both sides of roads to provide shade or shelter to the travelling public.
(iv) Construction of Dharma Shalas in towns and villages and more particularly at places of pilgrimages for the use of pilgrims and travellers.
(v) Construction of hospitals for human beings animals and birds as well as donations for construction of Hospitals or to hospitals already established.
(vi) Construction of buildings for educational institutions, hostels, etc.
(vii) Establishing goshalas to look after cows and bullocks in their old age.
(viii) Establishing public trusts and/or endowment for any public cause
SHIKSHAVALLI (Ch.1, Lesson â 11)
Speak the truth; follow the prescribed conduct;
Do not fail to pay attention to truth;
Never fail to perform duty
Do not disregard what is proper and good
Treat your Mother, Father and Teacher as equal to God
So also, treat your guest as God
Those acts that are irreproachable alone are to be performed, and not those that are forbidden.
This is the directive. This is the advice, Ts is the discipline to be observed thought life
(Taittiriyopanishad)
<b>ASHRAMA DHARMA â FOR HUMAN EXCELLENCE</b>
1. Brahmacharyashrama: Importance to acquisition of knowledge and securing physical and moral fitness I.e. strengthening of body, mind and intellect.
2. Grihasthasrama: Importance to honest and purposeful married life and family life, earning legitimate income and through it to serve the family and the society.
3. Vanaprapsthashrama:Â Importance to withdrawing from earning activities and devoting oneself more to the service of society.
4. Sanyaashrama: Importance to worship God by renunciation of worldly desires.
<b>DHARMA OF HUSBAND AND WIGE AND FAMILY LIFE</b>
MANU IX â96
To be mothers were women created and to be fathers men; religious rites therefore are ordained in the Veda to be performed by the husband together with his wife.
<b>
MARRIAGE â A SAMSKARA</b>
You shall not transgress Dharma in the attainment of Artha and kama
The Bridegroom accepts the condition with these words:
I shall not transgress Dharma, in matters of Artha and Kama.
DHARMA OF EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES
Shanti Parva (60-7-8) in Mahabharatha
âBeing free from anger, (Akrodaha) sharing lneâs wealth with others, (Samvibhagaha) forgiveness, (kshama) truthfulness, procreation of children from ones wife alone, purity (in mind, though and deed), (shoucham) not betraying the trust or confidence reposed, (Adrohaha) absence of enmity, maintaining the persons dependent on oneself, these are the nine rules of Dharma to be followed by persons belonging to all sections of societyâ.
SUKRANITI â II 807-808
Because of the payment of very low wages, employees of the king are likely to become his enemies and they are also likely to become plunderers of treasuries and cause hardship to the general public.
SUKRANITI â II 836-839
Low wages, harsh treatment, insults, abuses and imposition of heavy fines or severe punishments are the causes of unrest among the employees. Satisfied with payment of adequate wages, promoted honourably, cheered up by gentle words and consoled in grief, the employees will never let down or desert their master.
He is an excellent employee who does not desert the master in difficulties. He is known to be an ideal master who makes sacrifices in the interest of his employees.
<b>GUIDELINES TO THE EMPLOYERS</b>
(i)Â Proper wages should be paid to the employees:
(ii) The employers should not mete out harsh treatment to his employees, should not insult them and even when punishment has to be imposed, it should not be disproportionate to the gravity of the charges proved
(iii) That there should be a promotional opportunities, and promotion should be given as and when it due, and more than all
(iv) when employees are if grief, on account of bereavement, illness or for any other reason it is the duty of the employer to console them and help them.
<b>EXTRA ANNUAL PAYMENT - SUKRANITI â II-830-831</b>
âEvery employee should be granted one eighth of his salary as a reward (bonus) annually. If an employee does his work efficiently, he should be granted an extra remuneration equal to one eighth of the piece rate earnings in recognition of his efficiency.â
Preference for the appointment of a deceased employeeâs son: Sukraniti-II 832-833
âIf any employee dies before retirement, his son becomes automatically entitled to get the employment of his deceased father. After attaining majority his waves should be determined according to his qualificationsâ.
<b>AN EXEMPLARY RULE</b>
âWhile distributing food to all the guests, if there is any shortage of food, the householder may stint (reduce the share to) himself, his wife and children, but by no means the food due to should be reduced. (Apastamba Smriti â Vide Dharma Kosha-P-816)
<b>IDEAL AND PURPOSE OF THE STATE</b>
BARHASPATYA SUTRA II-43
The goal of polity (Rajaniti) is the fulfillment of Dharma, Artha and kama.
KAMANDAKIYA IV-77
The state administered with the assistance of sagacious ministers secures the three goals (Trivarga) in an enduring manner.
<b>PERSONAL QUALITIES TO BE ACQUIRED BY THE KING</b>
MANU SMRITI
(a) The kind must subdue his senses:
Day and night the king must strenuously exert himself to conquer his senses for he alone who has conquered his own senses can keep his subjects in obedience.
b) The king must shun the following vices:
(i) Let him shun the ten vices springing from love of pleasure and the eight proceeding from wrath, which end in misery.
(ii) The king who is attached to vices springing from love of pleasure loses his virtue and wealth, and he who is given to vices arising from anger loses even his life.
(iii) Hunting, gambling, sleeping during day, censoriousness, libidinousness, drunkenness, an inordinate love for dancing, singing and music, and useless travel are the ten vices flowing from love of pleasure.
(iv) The four vices-drinking liquor, gambling Glibidinousness and hunting, arising out of love of pleasure, are the most pernicious in the same order.
(v) Tale bearing, violence, treachery, envy, slandering, unjust seizure of property, reviling and assault are the set of eightfold vices flowing from wrath; out of these, doing bodily injury, reviling and seizure of property are the most pernicious.
© Death preferable to vicious life:
MANU VIII 53
In a comparison between vice and death, vice is declared to be more harmful because a vicious man sinks to the nethermost hell while he who dies free from, vice goes to heaven.
(d) The king must guard himself against going astray; KAT 3-4, 5-9:
Glory very much resorts(to a king) whose senses are under control, who can curb his passions, who wields(the rod of) punishment against those who fall victims to temptations, and who does (every act) after due deliberation, and who is extremely calm and steady.
By reason of their being endowed with an abundance of valour, learning and wealth, and particularly on account of the supreme power (they wield), the minds of kings always tend to go astray(even) for the slightest reason(or impulse).
Kings who abide by the duties especially prescribed for them attain the position of Indra, but those who go astray deviating from the path of Dharma go to hell (after death).
KAUT :9-39
In the happiness of his subjects lies the kingâs happiness: in their welfare, his welfare, whatever pleases himself the king shall not consider as good, but whatever pleases his subjects, the king shall consider as good.
KAMANDAKA V 82-83(PP.63-64)
The subjects require protection against wicked officers of the king, thieves, enemies of the king, royal favourites (such as the queen, princes etc), and more than all, against the greed of the king himself. The king should ensure that the people are free from these fears.
Stop construction or builod (the temple) somewhere else, who would tarnish such a pious acgt by illegally depriving a man of his land?
If we who are the judges of what is right and what is not right, act unlawfully, who then will abide by the law?
RAJATARANGINI: IV 75-77
Yielding to another (however low), adhering to the principles of Rajadharma, is the appropriate course for a king. I wish you well. May you live long, establishing the supremacy of the law(Dharma). Seeing in you such faith in Dharma others will also act accordingly.
<b>THE SUPREMACY OF DHARMA</b>
BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD
The law (Dharma) is the king of kings. No one is superior to the law (Dharma); The law (Dharma) aided by the power of the king enables the weak to prevail over the strong.
MANU VII-22
There is hardly an individual in this world, who on his own, is pure in his conduct.
The kingâs (sovereignâs power to punish, keeps the people in righteous path. Fear of punishment (by the king) yields worldly happiness and enjoyment.
<b>DHARMA A PANACEA FOR HUMAN PROBLEMS</b>
1. DHARMA â Not Religion
2. DHARMA â is code of good conduct
  Many values of life were evolved on the basis of fundamental principles. The most cherished values where summed up by Sarvajna Narayana thus:
One who treats every woman (other than his wife) as equal to his own mother.
Treats(rejects) anotherâs wealth as if it were a clod of earth,
treats every living being as his own self is really a learned/wise person.
3. DHARMA binding on the Rulers and the Ruled.
    Gandhijiâs ideal of an ideal polity was Ramarajya. It stood for a society wherein a high, ethical standard of life is characterised by the pursuit of purusharthas â Dharma, Artha, Kama and Moksha. It is the prevalence of Dharma, which characterises an ideal society. Such a society is possible only if the governance of the country is based on clear, efficient and transparent administration. In the past, the king was not only a symbol, but was the ruler and administrator and the king had to observe the Dharma of the ruler, functioning in a selfless manner for the prosperity, harmony and happiness of his people. This is Gandhijiiâs concept of Ramarajya. Today, we have responsible governments run by elected representatives.
If the rulers do not observe Dharma, it will become a Ravanarajya. We have top make a choice, between Ramarajya and Ravanarajya.
Fredric max Muller remarked:
"If I were asked under what sky the human mind has most fully developed some of its choicest gifts, has most deeply pondered on the greatest problems of life and has found solutions to some of them, which well deserve the attention of even those who have studied Plato and Kant. I should point to India. And I were to ask myself from what literature we here in Europe, we who have been nurtured almost exclusively on the thoughts of Greeks and Romans, and of one Semitic race, the Jewish, amy draw that corrective which is most wanted in order to make our inner life more perfect, more comprehensive, more universal, in fact more truly human, a life, not for this life only, but a transfigured and eternal life â again I should point to India."
ARNOLD TOYNBEE:
Today we are still living in this transistional chapter of the worldâs history, but it is already becoming clear that a chapter which ahd a Western beginning will have to have an Indian ending if it is not to end in the self-destruction of the human raceâ¦. At this supremely dangerous moment in human history the only way of salvation for mankind is an Indian way.
<b>ACCEPTANCEOF DHARMA AS GLOBAL ETHIC</b>
1. We must treat others as   : atmavat sarvabhutanam
  we wish others to treat us
2. We consider humankind   : Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam
  our family
3. We should serve others   : Paropakarartham idam
          shareeram
4.(a)We must commit to a   : Ahimsa satyam-asteyam
   culture of non violence
 (b)We must speak and act : Shoucham indriyanigraha
   truthfully-we must not
   steal
4.©We must move beyond  : Etam samasikam dharmam
   the dominance of greed
   for power, money, prestige
   consumption
 (d)We must not commit any : Parityajedartha Kamou Yau
   sexual immorality       Syatam Dharma Varjitau
DHARMA ALONE SURVIVES
MANU 4-239-242
When one departs from this world to the other world, neither father nor mother, neither son nor wife will accompany him. Only the âDharmaâ practised by an individual follows him even after death.
A person takes birth alone and dies alone, he alone enjoys or suffers the consequences of his evil deeds.
Once a person dies, his relatives cremate body and leave for home. Only the Dharma performed by him during his life time remains with him. Therefore, it is essential that a man during his life time should conform to Dharma.
BHAGAVADGITA CH.VI-5
With the aid of mind a man can uplift himself (by his own good deeds) or can bring about his down fall(by his own misdeeds). Thus it is the mind of a man which could become either his friend or enemy.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Here is Dr. BB Lal's paper on "Distortions in Indian History" that he presented at ICIH-2009. Dr. Lal is the ex-DG, ASI.
The paper is especially interesting because he nails many myths. He quotes from Baudhayana Srauta-sutra which clearly says that a branch of Aryans migrated from India to Persia and onward to Europe. This is a proof of the "Out of India" theory. Also, he mentions the latest mischief of Witzel in mis-translating Sanskrit texts to prove his pet Aryan Migration theory.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Distortions in Indian History</b>
B.B. Lal
History has been defined in one of the dictionaries as "a continuous, systematic narrative of past events as relating to a particular people, country, period, person, etc., usually written in a chronological order." But a million-dollar question is: Can this "narrative" be wholly truthful i.e. without any "distortions"? If you pause for a while and ponder over the question, your answer, in all likelihood, would be: "Perhaps not." Why? Because, just as "beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder," I would say, "history lies in the perception of the historian."
To the best of my understanding, no narrator of any event can honestly claim that he/she has seen that event in its entirety. The position is more or less like the proverbial description of an elephant âseenâ by blind persons. Those who touched the legs said that the elephant was like the trunk of a tree; those who had a feel of the ears compared the animal with a big fan; and so on. No one ought to blame these persons since they reported what they observed. But, as we know, their descriptions were only partly correct and cannot be taken to be âall-inclusiveâ and are, therefore, âinconclusiveâ.
Leaving aside this narration of an elephant, even if we look at the reporting of any of the current events in a newspaper or on the television, we will find that the situation is not much different. For example, the recent beating up of some Biharis who had come to Mumbai to appear at a Railway Entrance examination, by the members of the Maharashtra Navanirman Sena was hailed as âpatrioticâ by the leaders of the Sena, whereas others condemned it as âatrociousâ. The same event was seen with coloured glasses worn by the viewers concerned and their own versions will go down as âhistoryâ written by their respective âhistorians.â
Let us take another example of yesteryears. What happened in India in 1857 has been termed as a âMutinyâ by the Britishers, but hailed as the âFirst War of Independenceâ by Indians. Perhaps both the parties will insist that their perception was/is correct. Who is going to be the arbiter?
The real culprit in all such cases seems to be the element of âperceptionâ of the narrator, in other words the âmind-setâ of the âhistorianâ. And howsoever the historian â or for that matter anybody â might try to be âtruthfulâ, he just cannot be, since how can he detach himself from his âperceptionâ â something ingrained in his mind? The above-noted two simple examples, namely those of the Mumbai beating up and the 1857 event, amply illustrate this.
Thus, history can never ever be âtrueâ in its entirety: the grey patches will always remain, though the depth and extent of the greyness may vary from narration to narration. And, to be honest, how is the reader better qualified to be the judge? Does he too not have his own âperceptionâ which, not unjustifiably, has often been termed as âprejudiceâ?
Having accepted the fact that no history can be bereft of âdistortionsâ, I would like to distinguish between âunconsciousâ and âconsciousâ distortions, in other words distortions which may have crept in unwittingly and those which were deliberately engineered. Whereas the former could be the result of sheer ignorance of the complete data or of a shabby analysis thereof and are, therefore, pardonable in a way, it is the âconscious distortionsâ on which a heavy axe must fall. I will illustrate my point by citing examples of these two categories.
However, since I am a bit more familiar with the writings on ancient Indian history, my examples will naturally be drawn there from.
Way back in the 19th century, the renowned German scholar Max Muller dated the Vedas to circa 1200 BCE. This he did on a very ad-hoc basis. Having accepted that the Sµutra literature could be as old as the sixth century BCE, he assigned a duration of two hundred years to each of the preceding periods, namely those of the Aranyakas, Brahmanas and Vedas. Thus, 600+200+200+200= 1200 BCE was his ready-made date for the Vedas. However, when his contemporary scholars, such as Goldstucker, Whitney and Wilson raised objections to this kind of ad-hocism, he relented and came out with the following statement:
âI have repeatedly dwelt on the merely hypothetical character of the dates, which I have ventured to assign to the first periods of Vedic literature. All I have claimed for them has been that they are minimum dates, and that the literary productions of each period which either still exist or which formerly existed could hardly be accounted for within shorter limits of time than those suggested.â
But when even this explanation-cum-apology did not satisfy the scholars, Max Muller threw up his hands in sheer desperation. His confession, as follows, is worth noting (Max Muller 1890, reprint 1979):
âIf now we ask how we can fix the dates of these periods, it is quite clear that we cannot hope to fix a terminum a qua [sic]. Whether the Vedic hymns were composed [in] 1000 or 1500 or 2000 or 3000 BC, no power on earth will ever determine.â
In so far as Max Muller was concerned, the matter was closed from his side. But the greatest irony is that his original fatawa of 1200 BCE, given in the 19th century, is sill ruling the roost in ceratin quarters even in the 21st century!
The disastrous effect of this fatawa was seen in the 1920s when the Harappan Civilization was discovered and attempts were made to identify its authors. On the basis of the occurrence of several objects of this civilization in deposits of certain already-dated West Asian cultures, it was assigned to the 3rd millennium BCE. The net result was that the Vedic people were never even considered to have been the authors of the Harappan Civilization, since according to Max Mullerâs fatawa the Vedas were only as old 1200 BCE.
Simultaneously, without any sustainable reason the authorship was thrust on the Dravidian-speaking people. And this is how the first major distortion took place in interpreting ancient Indian history! Adding fuel to the fire was the famous declaration of my revered guru, Sir Mortimer Wheeler. In 1946, after having discovered a fortification-wall around one of the mounds at Harappa and on learning that in the Vedas Indra has been described as puraÃ
dara (i.e. destroyer of forts), he lost no time and announced (1947: 82):
âOn circumstantial evidence Indra [symbolic of the Vedic Aryans] stands accused [of destroying the Harappan Civilization].â This was the second major distortion. The hands of the Vedic âinvadersâ were sullied with the blood of the so-called âDravidian-speaking Harappansâ who were said to have been massacred by the former, and whose territories were usurped by them driving the latter all the way down to south India.
In support of the (supposed) massacre, Wheeler cited some skeletons met with at Mohenjo-daro. However, an in-depth analysis of the provenance of these skeletons shows that they occurred in different stratigraphic levels â some in the middle, some in the late and yet some others in deposits which had accumulated at the site after its abandonment.
Had an invasion been the cause of these deaths, one expects that the skeletons would have been found in one level which also would have been the uppermost, after which the inhabitants are taken to have deserted the site and migrated to south India. Further, all the skeletal remains came from the Lower Town which was occupied by the commoners, but none from the Citadel area which was the seat of the government.
Are we expected to believe that the âinvadersâ killed the commoners and carefully spared the high-ups? The doubt about the deaths having been the result of an âinvasionâ is also supported by that fact some of the skeletons bore cut-marks which had been healed â a process which must have taken quite some time. There would have been no healing had the deaths been due to a âmassacreâ. I am in full agreement with George F. Dales who captioned his paper (1964): âThe Mythical Massacre at Mohenjo-daroâ.
In this context, it also needs to be added that no site of the Harappan Civilization has yielded any evidence of âinvasionâ, much less of âmassacreâ. Nor is there any evidence of an alien culture overtaking any of these sites. On the other hand, the data show a continuity of occupation and only gradual cultural transition â such as into what has been labeled as the Jhukar Culture at Chanhu-daro or Cemetery H Culture at Harappa or the Rangpur Culture in Gujarat.
Confronted with the foregoing situation, the crusaders of the âinvasion theoryâ now no longer swear by it. But the âghostâ of that theory has begun to re-appear in a new avatÅra (incarnation), namely that of âmigrationâ. Says Romila Thapar (1989-91: 259-60):
âIf invasion is discarded then the mechanism of migration and occasional contacts come into sharper focus. The migrations appear to have been of pastoral cattle breeders who are prominent in the Avesta and Rigveda.â
Faithfully following her, R.S. Sharma asserts (1999: 77):
â... the pastoralists who moved to the Indian borderland came from Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex or BMAC which saw the genesis of the culture of the ¡Rigveda.â
It appears that both Thapar and Sharma are still wedded to the bygone notion that the Vedic Aryans were nomads. But they do not appear to have done any home-work about the Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex. V. I. Sarianidi and his colleagues have unearthed the wonderful remains of the BMAC, which spread over the area from Turkmenistan to northern Afghanistan (Fig. 1) between circa 2100 and 1700 BCE. And, as would be seen from what follows, the BMAC was a highly developed urban culture having nothing to do with ânomad-ismâ â the basal point of the Thapar-Sharma thesis.
Thus, it seems necessary to spell out, howsoever briefly, the characteristic features of the BMAC. The settlements were not only marked by well planned large-sized houses but also had distinctive religious and public buildings like temples at Dashly-3 in Bactria and Togolok-21 in Margiana, and even Citadel complexes like the one at Gonur. The Dashly-3 temple was circular on plan, with a diameter of 40 metres and was provided with nine square bastions on the exterior.
The Toglok-21 temple was much more elaborate. Situated on about 1.5 hectares of land, it had an inner unit measuring 60 x 40 metres, provided with circular and semi-circular bastions on the exterior. This inner complex was surrounded by two successive enclosures which too had bastions on the outer side (Fig. 2). The âCitadelâ at Gonur was a still more elaborate affair. Covering an overall area of 120 x 115 metres and enclosed by a massive fortification-wall with rectangular bastions all around, it included within the complex the kingâs palace, audience hall and administrative and garrison blocks (Fig. 3).
The antiquities found at the BMAC sites also speak volumes for the high calibre of the culture. Without going into too many details, it may suffice to draw attention to even just a few items. Thus, for example, there is the elaborate axe of silver covered with gold lamina. At the butt-end it bears the heads of two eagles and a winged feline (Fig. 4). Evidently, this axe was not an ordinary one (like so many others found at the site) but appears to have been used for some ceremonial purpose. Maybe it was mounted on a staff which was held by the ruler as a symbol of authority.
The sculptural art of the BMAC people was, once again, of a very high order. This may be seen from the three illustrated specimens. Fig. 5 shows the seated statue of a lady from Bactria. In order to bring out a contrast in the portrayal, the sculptor has used a blackish stone for the dress but a pinkish white for the head and hands. Attention may also be drawn to the fine herring-bone weave of the garment and to the delicate hair-style.
And the animal-portrayals were no less breath-taking. Thus, for example, have a look at the feline in Fig. 6. It is covered with a gold-leaf in which are embedded semi-precious stones of a variety of colours. No less remarkable is the limestone goat whose horns, eyes and beard are made of lapis lazuli (Fig. 7).
Would you like to deduce from the foregoing that the BMAC people were nomads â whom Thapar and Sharma would like to push into India as the progenitors of the ¡Rigvedic people? I am sure, you wouldnât.
But why blame the Thapar-Sharma duo alone? Even the principal excavator of the BMAC sites has erred when he sees in its authors the ancestors of the Vedic Aryans. I thoroughly examined these pitfalls in the Inaugural Address which I delivered in July 2007 at the 19th International Conference on South Asian Archaeology, held at the University of Bologna, Ravenna, Italy.
Here I shall touch upon just a few major blunders in Sarianidiâs thesis. He advances four arguments in support of his thesis, namely those of: (i) soma, (ii) aÃvamedha, (iii) fire-worship, and (iv) cultmotifs on the BMAC glyptics. It has been claimed by Sarianidi that the remains of ephedra and poppy occurred in the temple at Togolok-21, which he identifies with soma of the Vedic people. First of all, it needs to be stated that not all scholars agree that ephedra is indeed soma. Secondly, Harri Nyberg (1995), the well known authority on the subject, categorically denies the identification of the pollens concerned with those of ephedra or poppy. Hence the shaky nature of this
argument.
Having found a skeleton of the horse with the head missing, Sarianidi concludes that it was a case of asvamedha sacrifice. In the first place, this skeleton lay just a few centimetres below the surface and there was no burial-pit (Fig. 8). Thus, the missing of the head could be due to a variety of extraneous reasons. More importantly, however, the remains do not conform to the description given in the Vedic texts about the asvamedha which states: âThe axe penetrates the thirty-four ribs of the swift horse, the beloved of the gods, (the immolators), cut up (the horse) with skill, so that the limbs may be perforated and recapitulating joint by joint.â The theory of asvamedha sacrifice, therefore, is a non-starter.
The case of fire-worship is still worse. Sarianidi first compares the outer plan of a structure at Gonur with that of a fire-temple at Nush-i-Jan (Fig. 9). But there is no evidence of any fire-worship at Gonur. Let that alone, the error is beyond redemption when Sarianidi calls a structural complex at Mohenjo-daro (Fig. 10) a âfire temple.â
The excavator of Mohenjo-daro, however, categorically calls it a normal residential complex (Marshall 1931, Vol. I: 202). But the greatest pitfall is that whereas the Mohehjo-daro complex belongs to the 3rd millennium BCE, the Gonur example is assignable to the 2nd millennium BCE. Did Sarianidi ever realize the adverse repercussion of these dates? Indeed, if his comparison were to be valid, the movement of the people would have to be from India to the Bactria-Margiana region. Would he like to accept this position?
Now to the cult-motifs on the BMAC glyptics. Since there occur on some Bogazkoy tablets the names of the Vedic gods like Indra, Mitra, VaruÃa and NÅsatya, Sarianidi (1993: 677) argues, as follows:
âSince it is Mitanni texts that contain the oldest mention of Aryan deities, there cannot be any doubt about the connection of the Fig. 8. Burial (?) of a horse in Gonur Depe. Mitanni empire with the so-called Aryan problem. As the replication of Mitanni art in Bactria and Margiana is clearly not coincidental, we are justified in connecting the tribes migrating into Central Asia and Indus Valley with the settlement process of the Aryan or Indo-Aryan tribes.â
While some parallels between the motifs on the BMAC and Syro-Hittite glyptics may be conceded, these have hardly to do anything with Aryan deities. To be more specific, may not one ask Sarianidi to point out what exactly Aryan is there in the two of the seals chosen by him in this context (Figs.11 and 12)? Does he think that the âstanding nude anthropomorphic winged deity with avian head and holding animals by their tailsâ in the former of these seals is Indra or Mitra or Varuna or Nasatya?
At that rate, one fine morning someone might come out with a brilliant idea that the scene in the next seal (Fig. 12) depicts âthe offering of Soma to Indraâ, where Indra is the figure seated on the chair and a devotee is offering the soma in a cup, the beverage itself having been stored in the jar behind!
However, more important than whatever has been stated in the past couple of paragraphs is the fact that no cultural element of the Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex ever reached east of the Indus (cf. Figs. 13 and 14), which was the domain of the Vedic Aryans as per the Nad-stuti Sµukta of the Rigveda itself Fig. 9.
Fort at Gonur Temple at Nush-i-Jan (10.75: 5 and 6). How can then one force the entry of the BMAC people into the Rigvedic region even through a back door? And now to yet another daring attempt at pushing the Vedic Aryans from the Bactria-Margiana region into India. The renowned author from Finland, Asko Parpola, states in one of his papers (1993: 47):
âA newly found antennae-hilted sword from Bactria paralleling those from Fatehgarh suggests that this same wave of immigrants may also have introduced the Copper Hoards into India.â (Cf. Fig. 15.)
Those who are familiar with the Indian Copper Hoards know full well that these comprise not merely one type, namely the antennae sword, but several others, such as the anthropomorphs, harpoons, bar celts, shouldered celts, etc (Fig. 16). Besides, should the occurrence of a single antennae sword in Bactria entitle that country to be the âoriginal homeâ of the Copper Hoard Culture (which, incidentally, also has many other components such as the distinctive Ochre Colour Ware)? At that rate, on the basis of the occurrence of a single Harappan seal at Gonur in Margiana (Fig. 17) Parpola might one day turn round and claim that the Harappan Civilization also originated in that region!
Hasnât it been rightly said that to the jaundiced eye everything appears to be yellow? This over-enthusiasm to somehow push the Aryans into India from the west has led scholars even to mis-interpret the Vedic Texts.
And here is a case in point. The learned Sanskrit scholar at the Harvard University, Professor Michael Witzel, writes (1995: 320-21):
âTaking a look at the data relating to the immigration of the Indo-Aryans into South Asia, one is struck by the number of vague reminiscences of foreign localities and tribes in the Rigveda, in spite of repeated assertions to the contrary in the secondary literature. Then, there is the following direct statement contained in (the admittedly much later) BÃS [Baudhayana Srauta-sutra], 18.44:397.9 which has once again been overlooked, not having been translated yet:
âAyu went eastwards. His (people) are the Kuru-Pancala and Kasi-Videha. This is the Ayava (migration). (His other people) stayed at home in the west. His people are the Gandhari, Parsu and Aratta. This is the Amavasa (group).â
Though Witzel takes pride in being the first to translate this passage from the Baudhayana Srauta-sutra, have a look at the deliberate distortion he has made. In order to make my point clear it is necessary to quote the relevant text in the original. It runs as follows:
âPranayuh pravavraja. Tasyaite Kuru-Pancalah- Kasi-Videha
ity etad ayavam. Pratyan Amavsuh [pravavraja] tasyaite Gandharayas
Parsvo âratta ity etad Amavasam.â
In the first sentence of the text the verb used is pravavraja which means âmigratedâ. Simple rules of grammar require that in the second sentence too, wherein the verb is not mentioned but is understood, it has got to be the same, namely âpravavrajaâ. The correct translation of the entire piece will thus be: âAyu migrated eastwards. His people are the Kuru-Panchalas and Kasi-Videhas.
This is the Ayava (migration). Amavasu migrated westwards. His (people) are the Gandhari Parsu and Aratta. This is the Amavasava (migration).
What then the text really says is that (from some intermediary region) Ayu migrated eastwards and Amavasu migrated westwards. In other words, the migrations must have taken place from an area somewhere between the Gandhara region on the west and the Kuru region on the east. In contrast, Witzelâs translation says that while Ayu migrated eastwards, the Amavasu group stayed back, implying thereby that there was an eastward migration from a body of people who had their own land in the west and where they stayed back.
This is a deliberate distortion by Witzel in order to give a boost to his pre-conceived theory of an Aryan immigration from the west.
The Baudhayana Srauta-sutra does in fact narrate the story of a section of the Vedic Aryans, namely the descendants of Amavasu, having migrated westwards, via the Gandhara region in Afghanistan to Persia (Parsu of the text) and Ararat (Aratta) in Armenia.
From there they must have proceeded to Turkey where the Bogazkoy tablets of the 14th century BCE refer to a treaty between the Hittite king Suppiluliuma and Mitanni king Matiwaza who cite the Vedic gods Indra, Varuna, Mitra and Nasatyas as witnesses.
In my forthcoming book âHow Deep are the Roots of Indian Civilization?: Archaeology Answers,â I have included a special chapter on this topic in which I have quoted literary, epigraphical and archaeological evidences, variously from India, Iran, Iraq and turkey, duly establishing this westward emigration of the Vedic people in the 2nd millennium BCE and would not like to take more of the precious time of my audience now. Only a map is presented here, which speaks for itself (Fig. 18).
Now some parting words. While no doubt it is our bounden duty to set the distortions right, it is imperative that this ought to be done only with cogent evidence and fully sustainable arguments. No talking in the air or emotions will do. Further, we must also guard against being swayed away by any kind of political or religious considerations. A true academic should worship only one god: the truth â unmitigated truth.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
PART ONE
Yvette Rosser
SAFFRON ARCHEOLOGY AND THE MEDIA
"I have said that it is archaeologists who have been at the forefront of this saffron movement. It is important for the public to know that the same archaeologists â and they are a minority â who spun the tale about an â84 pillar templeâ under the Babri masjid have created this âAryan Harappansâ myth."
--- Shireen Ratnagar
The following discussion concerns a contemporary civilizational controversy regarding contestations in the interpretation of archaeological data. During the summer of 2000, a very public debate arose surrounding the excavation of a 10th century Jain temple in Fatehpur Sikri where a team from the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) had unearthed the ruins of a temple that revealed, among other finds, a pit filled with numerous damaged, broken statues. The debate about this archeological dig offers an example of not only the ideological gulf dividing social scientists in India, but is indicative of the manner in which opposing camps of scholars have been using the popular media to sensationalize their perspectives.
The newspapers jumped in to report about this particular excavation site. Shortly, Prof. K.N. Panikkar, Prof. K.M. Shirmali, Prof. Harbans Mukhia from JNU and Prof. Irfan Habib from Aligarh Muslim University, D. N. Jha from Delhi University, and numerous other Indian academics who often chime in to condemn the Indo-centric paradigms, issued a statement that accused the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) of acting irresponsibly by excavating the ruins of this Jain temple citing the dig as an example of âsaffron archeology.â
These critics accused the ASI of âcommunalizing archeologyâ. They claimed that the ASI was excavating this site because they wanted to prove that Muslims had destroyed the Jain temple. The historians also contended that the archaeologists at the ASI twist their data, releasing information before it was entirely analyzed, and manipulating the popular media. Many historians have recently assumed that they are more able to understand the nuances of archaeological data than are trained archaeologists whose interpretations are now considered to be tainted by saffron.
Harbans Mukhia, a medieval historian, explained during our interview:
âArchaeology is a discipline that requires a tremendous amount of patience, you dig up things, donât start announcing your conclusions, be patient, fill out your report, and then, reach whatever conclusions. They donât have the patience, they want to get into the newspaper head lines immediately so usually it starts from there, announcing headlines.. which headlines? Usually provocative headlines ⦠for example, their evidence of Aryan settlements. Now that leads to a reaction and a counter denunciation, etc. If there was patience⦠they havenât bothered to publish reports for 25 years not to speak of the ones last year, but suddenly you get these screaming headlines. They donât have the patience.â
The July 2000 press release written by the well known group of Delhi historians, claimed that the ASI was excavating the site to prove that Muslims, specifically the Moghul emperor Akbar, destroyed this Jain temple in order to construct his nearby capitol city. On the other hand, quite a few scholars whom I interviewed in Delhi as well as several journalists and two renowned archeologists refuted this accusation. They maintained that the excavation of the Jain site was significant in its own right, pointing to the discovery of one of the most beautiful examples of an 11th century Sarasvati statue ever found.
The archeologists insisted that the ASI had never claimed a connection between the demolition of this Jain temple, the destruction date of which was yet to be determined, and the construction of Akbarâs fortified palatial city nearby. If this was claimed, the ASI maintained, then it was an extrapolation by the popular media.
There were numerous newspaper articles and op-ed pieces about this archaeological dig. It typified the divisions that are ubiquitous among the prolifically polarized intellectuals in India. Besides speaking with several archeologists in Delhi, I made a brief long distance telephone call to Agra and spoke with the superintending archeologist of the dig, D.V. Sharma who said that he had never claimed that the Jain Temple had been destroyed by Akbar. Several months after the spectacle had erupted across the newspapers, an article in the July 22, 2000 edition of the magazine Frontline confirmed that D.V. Sharma had not made such an extrapolation, but that the media had sensationalized the major archeological discovery of a large and rare catch of statues dating from the 10th and 11th centuries.
Dharam Vir Sharma, Superintending Archaeologist of the Agra Circle of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), was at pains to distance himself from all such interpretations. âThis is purely an academic exercise,â he argued, âand the objective is to reveal certain aspects of the history of Central India from the pre-Mughal periodâ.
The templeâs only relationship to Akbar was that the excavation site is quite near to Akbarâs famous palace, Fatehpur Sikri. The media certainly added to the sensationalization of this dig, and naturally, the Hindu-centric crowd capitalized on it as well, claiming that such desecration looked like the work of Muslim iconoclasts.
Harbans Mukhia wrote an op-ed critique of the ASI Fatehpur Sikri excavation. He proposed a tentative supposition that perhaps intolerant Brahmins had destroyed this Jain site. His comments are discussed at length because they fueled the resentment of non-leftist intellectuals, bitter about what they perceive as the tendency among leftists to blame Hindus for imagined crimes of the past and exonerate Muslims invaders, whom they see as iconoclasts. Mukhiaâs article in the Hindustan Times, that took a pot shot at the ASI, infuriated several archaeologists who responded passionately to his critique.
The details of this controversial dig are far simpler than its repercussions. The excavation was conducted by D.V. Sharma, Superintendent Agra Circle of the Archaeological Survey of India, on a mound called Bir Chhabili, where, based on âtextual references and other indicationsâ, they suspected an old temple may have stood. They found one. There was a pit at the temple site in which numerous broken statues, bearing marks of vandalization, had apparently been carefully buried after having been damaged. Among the statues uncovered was a large exquisite statue of the goddess Sarasvati. Though a statue of the Hindu Goddess of music and learning, it is in the distinctive Jain style.
Sharma had proposed, in his initial analysis, that this pit was a kind of visarjan where broken statues had been placed for burial.
The media, when reporting about the remarkable find, erroneously associated the ruins of the Jain temple with Akbar, since the excavation was going on only a few hundred meters from the walls of Fatehpur Sikri â though the desecration of the temple may have predated the construction of the city. Shortly after the news about the excavation was published in the press, Prof. Harbans Mukhia from JNU visited the site with a group of students and spoke with the junior archeologists at work there. Mukhia returned to Delhi and a few weeks later wrote âDemolishing Temples Wasnât the Pastâs Only Languageâ which appeared in The Hindustan Times on Sunday, March 19, 2000.
In this article Professor Mukhia claimed that in the medieval period, Hindus also destroyed temples. He took a very negative view of the Bir Chhabili archeological project. In the first few paragraphs he gave a little lesson in historiography vis-à -vis state sponsored violence and asked the reader to note that, âthe wrapping of political nuances around the discipline of historyâ is common in all nationalist histories. He went on to state that destructions of religious sites âreflect the assertion of state power by the rulers ⦠and their search for legitimisation in a vision of historyâ.
After describing the archeological site as he viewed it, during the few hours that he had visited, Professor Mukhia speculated that since numerous statues of the Jain deity, Mahavira, were found broken into smaller pieces, and bore âseveral marks of deliberate or indeliberate vandalismâ but the âJainia Saraswati⦠[was] almost in tact, with one hand broken off, but laying by its sideâ that, as a historian, this information leads him to âa suspicionâ.
He therefore speculates: âIs it feasible to consider the possibility of Brahminical intolerance, which spared the one goddess with clear Brahminical association, but not others which were, as it were, on the other side of the fence, that is, Jainism?
Professor Mukhia, in this rather far-fetched âsuspicionâ of Hindu on Jain violence, contradicts his assertions at the beginning of this article when he explained about historiography and stressed that religious clashes were not the only language of the past. We should not assume, he emphasized, that the âstate did nothing else except demolish temples and subjugate people of other faithsâ.
He criticizes historians who ânever view history except as interminable religious clashes organized by the state. It is thus that just about any testimony, textual or archaeological, bearing upon history is immediately constructed as a proof of the statesâ religious intolerance.â
Yet, by the end of his article, Mukhia is asking his readers to consider that it is âfeasibleâ that Brahmans mutilated these Jain murtis. This speculation is based on his negative evaluation of Brahmans of the medieval era. In so doing, Mukhia politicized his analysis of the excavation. He uses mocking tones to describe the motivations of the archaeologists. Mukhiaâs contemporary political opinions about the neo-Hindu Revivalists movement, caused him to blame their Sanskrit spouting ancestors for the desecration. Albeit, this is, he stresses, only a suspicious possibility.
He fails to see that his claim, that history has been politicized, is in itself politicized. To continue to miss the point of his whole essay and attempt to sharpen the political point, he caps his claim that Hindus may have been responsible for the destruction of this Jain temple, with a jab at the current BJP government and the ASI, when he wrote regarding âMuslim demolitions of non-Muslim templesâ that âa former professor of physics and a former journalist let it be known from their ministerial platforms that this is the only correct version of Indian historyâ.
The physics professor and the former journalist alluded to, are M.M. Joshi (Ph.D. in Physics, former Professor at Aligarh University) the controversial Minster of Human Resource Development (HRD) that served under the BJP government and Arun Shourie (former journalist and Ph.D. in Economics from Syracuse) and at that time a BJP member of the upper house of parliament, the Rajya Sabha.
Two weeks later, in a rebuttal to Harbans Mukhiaâs article, Dr. Meenakshi Jain, a historian in Delhi, wrote an op-ed piece that appeared in the April 4, 2000 edition of The Hindustan Times, âBrahmins Werenât Iconoclastsâ. She wrote, âThe recent discovery of Jain statues in Fatehpur Sikri is evidence that communalism was âconstructedâ much before the colonial periodâ.
As one of the few outspoken ânon-leftistâ historians in New Delhi, Dr. Jain describes her view of the battlefield that is contemporary Indian historiography: âFrightened by the growing avalanche of archaeological evidence which threatens to pulverize Marxist historiography, the desperation of leftist academics to salvage their rendition of the past is entirely understandable. Decades of labour expended in effacing references to the destruction of Hindu temples, shifting the focus instead to sectarian Hindu conflict is now in jeopardy.â
She continues: âGiven the Jain communityâs impeccable non-militant credentials and Akbarâs reputation as the best face of Indian Islam, this casts an entirely new light on inter-community relations in medieval India. That is why, though Jain-Hindu reactions have been muted so far, Marxists have rushed in to defend their carefully sanitised version of the past.
For the leftists, Akbar is sacrosanct, the âFather of Indian integrationâ--a model of communal harmony because he is seen as less âfanaticalâ and more âIndianizedâ than his ancestors or his offspring, which included some of the more notorious iconoclasts in Indian lore, such as Babur and Aurangzeb. The leftist intellectuals, who extrapolate their historical narratives about medieval India outwards from the benevolent âsecularismâ of Akbarâs fifty-five year reign, were therefore particularly pained to discredit an archeological excavation that might indicate that Akbar was not as liberal as depicted in the history textbooks they had written.
Ironically, as mentioned, the ASI officer, D.V. Sharma, had not made the claim that Akbar had destroyed this Jain temple, neither had the junior archaeologists working at the sight. However, the famous vocal group of concerned historians in Delhi, inferred that if a temple was destroyed around the time that Akbar built his capital at Fatehpur Sikri, then obviously the âsaffron archeologistsâ must be trying to connect the destruction of the Jain temple with Akbarâs construction of Fatehpur Sikri.
Four months after the initial media hoopla, the Delhi Historians Group called a news conference to condemn the excavations on the hillock near Agra, and issued a press statement signed by two dozen professors. Included in this list were the names of historians who have taken the lead to write historical pamphlets and op-ed pieces designed more to inflame Hindu sentiments than to offer a nuanced, culturally sensitive, multi-perspectival approach to controversial topics such as temple desecration and beef eating in ancient India.
I cannnot post rest of her paper. There is something wrong with forum software.
Anjani: You'll have to break big posts into multiple small ones. There's a limit on size of posts I think.
PART TWO
Yvette Rosser
SAFFRON ARCHEOLOGY AND THE MEDIA
Professor Mukhia, in his newspaper article stressed that not only Muslims destroyed temples during the medieval period, but that Brahmans had also frequently destroyed Jain and Buddhist holy sites. He wrote that there were âinnumerable instances of the demolition of Buddhist viharas by Hindusâ (emphasis mine). This claim has long been the countervailing âleftistâ argument vis-Ã -vis temple destruction during the medieval period. This accusation was brought forth with a vengeance during the âhistory pamphleteeringâ years leading up to the destruction of the Babri Masjid in December 1992. In response to the archeological dog at the Jain temple unearthed near Fatehpur Sikri in 2000, several âJNU-typeâ scholars once again fell back on this analysis.
This theory has been one of the primary arguments for almost two decades. It became the main tact used during the Ram Janam Bhumi/Babri Masjid controversy by those who argued against the prior existence of a Hindu temple at the long contested sight. They could argue, as they did, that âBabur may have destroyed a templeâ, but it was a common practice all over historical India. Especially, they will mention the âhundredsâ of instances when Hindu kings destroyed Buddhist sites, though most contenders rarely offered any conclusive evidence.
As early as 1986, a group of Delhi historians, as a block, were writing letters to the editor claiming that Hindus destroyed Buddhist and Jain temples. An early example of this tactic is quoted in full by Sita Ram Goel, in his controversial book, âHindu Temples, What Happened to Them.â Goel describes the circumstances leading to the publication of their letter, âIn August 1986, The Times of India printed on its front page the photographs of two stones carrying defaced carvings of some Hindu deities. There was a short statement beneath the photographs that the stones had been found by the Archaeological Survey of India in course of repairs to the Qutb Mînãr at Delhi. The stones, according to the Survey, had been built into a wall with the carved faces turned inwards.â
Goel goes on to cite several letters to the editor that this photograph elicited:
âThe majority of writers congratulated the editor for breaking a conspiracy of silence regarding publication of a certain type of historical facts in the mass media. A few writers regretted that a news item like that should have been published in a prestigious daily in an atmosphere of growing communal tension. None of the writers raised the question or speculated as to how those stones happened to be there. None of them drew any inference from the fact that the Qutb Mînãr stands near the Quwwat al-Islãm Masjid which, according to an inscription on its eastern gate, was built from the materials of twenty-seven Hindu temples.â
Goel mentions another article in The Times of India on September 15, 1986 with a photo depicting âthe Idgãh built by Aurangzebâ and âthe news that a committee had been formed by some leading citizens for the liberation of what is known to be Srî KrishNaâs place of birthâ. This was followed by a few more letters to the editor and then, on October 2: â[A] dozen professors from Delhiâ¦wrote a long letter of protest. The letter ⦠reveals the line laid down by a well-entrenched clique which has come to control all institutions concerned with the researching, writing and teaching of history in this country.â
This letter, written by the Delhi historians twelve years before the BJP came to power at the center, four years before the destruction of the Babri Masjid, complained that they had ânoted with growing concern a recent tendency in The Times of India to give a communal twist to news itemsâ. They warned the Times that its âreaders should know that historical analysis and interpretations involve more than a mere listing of dates with an eye to pious sentimentsâ. This list of historians included the same dozen names that still appear on op-ed pieces and press releases that continue to be written to counter what they consider to be communal history, such as the insinuation that the majority of Islamic invaders and rulers desecrated Hindu, Buddhist, and Jain temples.22 Importantly, relevant to the immediate topic, they promote the claim that Hindu rulers in the medieval era were almost as culpable of temple desecrations as were Muslim rulers.
The jointly signed 1986 letter to the editor then took up several issues including Aurangzebâs temple desecrations and the destruction of Buddhist shrines by Hindus, which in a rebuttal, Sita Ram Goel addresses, one by one. None of the historians who signed the letter engaged Goelâs points. These kinds of one-sided exchanges are typical. When Delhi Historians bring out a critique of certain historical controversies, such as the interpretation of an archaeological dig, their objections are eagerly, sometimes vociferously, addressed by the recipient of the condemnation, issue by issue, such as D.V. Sharmaâs response to Harbans Mukhiaâs critique.
Regardless, this strategy has not created much dialogue, presumably because the leftist historians do not want to âlower themselvesâ to entertain what they consider to be âcommunal ideasâ. Nonetheless, each time a leftist historian publishes a critique in the press, a non-leftist scholar, for want of a better word, or commentator writes back and points out flaws uncovered in the suppositions of the eminent historians, point by point. These rebuttal critiques are usually ignored. This pattern is undoubtedly what prompted Anjali Mody, a correspondent for The Hindu to write, in exasperation, âFor every fact that a left or liberal historian throws into the public arena to counter the Sangh's claims the Sangh too can, as it has shown, conjure up an opposing âfactâ. For every piece of masonry quoted as evidence by historians, the Sangh/BJP will produce two.â
This same predominance of data was brought forward to show that there had been a large 11th century temple under the Babri Masjid site, but since the evidence was âtainted by Saffronâ or âNationalismâ, the âDelhi historiansâ refused to consider it. This tendency to discount all research, if it happens to also prove supportive of Indian and/or Hindu Nationalism is repeated constantly in academia. Professors in South Asian Studies Departments have written anthologies and organized conferences about Hindu Revivalism. These educational products rarely if ever include articles or presentations by members of the groups under study.
There are certainly many competent scholars in India who could represent the "non-Marxist", âindigenousâ, "Indo-centric" point of view regarding the history and study of India. As a rule, however, their arguments and analyses are usually ignored--except when short excerpts are quoted out of context, especially in op-ed pieces written by âDelhi historians groupâ. This absence of Hindu voices in the academic treatment of Hindu Revivalism among colleagues in Departments of South Asian Studies is, in an academic world informed by post-Orientalism, post-Edward Said-ism. a startling deficit that does not allow for dispassionate and informed discourse, much less affording any possibility of dialogue.
Sita Ram Goel also complained about the media blackout that occurs when these âMarxist scholarsâ contest the treatment of certain historical issues. He wrote:
â[A] few readers of The Times of India including several professors of equal rank wrote letters challenging the facts as well as the logic of the Marxist professors. But none of these letters was published in the letters-to-the-editor column of the newspaper. After a fortnight, the daily published some nondescript letters from its lay readers and announced that the âcontroversy has been closedâ. It was a curious statement, to say the least. The controversy had only started with the publication of the long letter from the Marxist professors, accusing The Times of India of spreading âcommunalismâ and making a number of sweeping statements. The other side was waiting for its rejoinders to appear in print. The Times of India would have been only fair to itself and its readers to let the other side have its say. But it developed cold feet. Perhaps it was not prepared to get branded as âcommunalistâ for the sake of âa few facts from the dead past.â Perhaps it was in a hurry to retrieve its reputation which had been âcompromisedâ by the publication of the âcontroversial photographs.â â
In Western academia, it would seem that politically correct precautions continue dictate scholarship about not only Hindu Nationalism.
The same dismissive treatment and the lack of desire to engage their objects of criticism when those objects argue back, is made obvious by Harbans Mukhiaâs failure to respond publicly, or for that matter, privately, to D.V. Sharmaâs seven page rebuttal to his article. His response to a reporter from The Hindu is indicative: âMukhia himself reacted mildly when contacted for his comments: âLet me assure Mr. Sharma that I am not denying the fact of demolition of temples in medieval India, but suggesting that each case has to be examined on its own merits and that Muslims had no monopoly over the demolition of others' places of worship. Historical evidence is far too complex to be reduced to simplistic formulasâ.â
Professor Mukhia was himself guilty of reducing history to platitudes nurtured by many years of calling ancient Hindus to task for killing Jains and/or Buddhists and destroying their sacred places. He purposefully ignored the more detailed and informed nuances pointed out by the archaeologists concerning the excavation at the site of the demolished Jain temple. Not only had Mukhia pedantically pontificated and wildly speculated, but when the errors in his theory were deconstructed by the archaeologist in charge, he preferred to remain mum.
In much the same fashion that D.V. Sharma took Harbans Mukhia to task for misrepresenting historical evidence and lacking expertise, so too, S.R. Goel, launched into a detailed analysis of the errors he found in the statement sent to The Times of India by the Delhi Historians Group. Though his rejoinder is too lengthy to recount in full, a few examples of the facility with which these non-leftist historians bring forth an immense amount of documentation, just to have it dismissed, is of interest and typical of these ultimately unproductive, as far as mutual understanding is concerned, academic exchanges.
PART THREE
Yvette Rosser
SAFFRON ARCHEOLOGY AND THE MEDIA
The âDelhi historiansâ wrote:
âDera Keshava Rai temple was built by Raja Bir Singh Deo Bundela during Jahangirâs reign. This large temple soon became extremely popular and acquired considerable wealth. Aurangzeb had this temple destroyed, took the wealth as booty and built an Idgah on the site. His actions might have been politically motivated as well, for at the time when the temple was destroyed he faced problems with the Bundelas as well as Jat rebellions in the Mathura region. It should be remembered that many Hindu temples were untouched during Aurangzebâs reign and even some new ones built. Indeed, what is really required is an investigation into the theory that both the Dera Keshava Rai temple and the Idgah were built on the site of a Buddhist monastery which appears to have been destroyed.â
Sita Ram Goelâs response goes into nineteen pages. I only reproduce a few of his counter arguments here, simply to show that spokesmen and women associated with âHindu Nationalistsâ are considered ill informed poseurs by an internationally renown scholar like Professor Romila Thapar, it may be assumed, also by her co-signatories on this letter and on dozens of press statements and pamphlets during the past two decades. These scholars are in fact, serious multilingual scholars, quite familiar with the historical record, able to draw from multiple sources, and adamant that their position is more grounded in historical facts.
First, Goel suggests, âleaving aside the Marxist accusation of âcommunalismâ against The Times of India that, âMarxists ⦠have a strong nose for smelling communalism in the faintest expression of Indian nationalismâ. He also writes, in retaliation against the pejorative pedantic approach,
ââ¦overlooking the ex-cathedra tone which characterises their pronouncements regarding interpretation of history. The tone comes quite easily to those who have enjoyed power and prestige for long and, therefore, begun to believe that they have a monopoly over truth and wisdom. We shall confine our examination to what they have stated as facts and what they claim to be the correct interpretations of those facts.â
First Goel takes up the âKesavadeva Tradition at Mathuraâ:
âIt is true that the temple of Kesavadeva which was destroyed and replaced with an Ãdgãh by Aurangzeb, was built by Bir Singh Deva Bundela in the reign of Jahãngîr. But he had not built it on a site of his own choosing. An age-old tradition30 had continued to identify the KaTrã mound (on which Aurangzebâs Ãdgãh stands at present) with the spot where KaMsa had imprisoned the parents of Srî KrishNa, and where the latter was born. The same tradition had also remembered with anguish that an earlier Kesavadeva temple which stood on this spot had been destroyed by an earlier Islamic iconoclast.â
Goel, continues, actually drawing from the works of Romila Thapar, who âhas herself testified to this tradition about Kesavadevaâ. Referring to âdescriptions of the Mathura region by Greek historiansâ, she had earlier written, âA possible connection could be suggested with Keshavadeva on the basis of this being an alternative name for KRSNa and there being archaeological evidence of a settlement at the site of Keshavadeva during the Mauryan period.â
Goel footnoted her reference31 and then added this comment in the footnote, that, if not âex-cathedraâ was at least tit for tat: âIt is her habit to speak with two tongues--one when she is in the midst of scholars who know the facts, and another when she functions as a professional Hindu-baiter.â
Goel sites studies by Dr. V.S. Agrawala. âCurator of the museum at Mathuraâ who âmakes the following observationsâ,
âMathurã on the Yamunã is famous as the birthplace of KRishNa. It was the seat of the Bhãgvata religion from about second century BC to fifth Century AD.â
Goel spends over three pages drawing corroborating information from epigraphy, textual references, oral narratives, and numerous archaeological studies to prove that âBrãhmanical shrines of Mathurã began to be built quite early as shown by the discovery of an epigraph [â¦] inscription [â¦] and lintelâ which testified that âa magnificent temple of VishNu was built at the site of KaTrã Kesavadevaâ.33 Continuing in this vein, drawing from germinal Sanskrit sources,34 Goel cites, âPatañjali35 [who] informs us of the existence of shrines dedicated of Rãma and Kesavaâ.36 He sites âthe earliest archaeological evidence to prove the tradition of the building of KRSNaâs shrineâ.37 Quoting copiously from previous research, the references continue for many pages, politicized needling of his Marxist âotherâ does not play into this segment of his exegesis.
Goel then takes up the topic of âWhy Aurangzeb Destroyed the Templeâ, responding to the comment by the Delhi Historians Group that âAurangzeb had this temple destroyed, took the wealth as booty and built an Idgah [for] âpolitical motivationsâ, [because] he faced problems with the Bundelas as well as Jat rebellions in the Mathura regionâ. They then remind the readers that âmany Hindu temples were untouched during Aurangzebâs reign and even some new ones builtâ.
Drawing from âcontemporary records to see how these explanations are wide of the markâ Goel brings out details from historical documents, âThe temple of Kesavadeva was destroyed in January, 1670 [to comply with] an imperial firmãn proclaimed by Aurangzeb on April 9, 1669â. On that date, according to Maâsîr-i-Ãlamgîrî, âThe Emperor ordered the governors of all provinces to demolish the schools and temples of the infidels and strongly put down their teaching and religious practices.â
Quoting from the historian, Jadunath Sarkar, Goel cited âseveral sources regarding the subsequent destruction of temples which went on all over the country, and right up to January 1705, two years before Aurangzeb diedâ. Having referenced his comments, he goes in for the politicized kill, calling into question the reasoning abilities of the âMarxist historiansâ,
âNone of the instances cited by [Aurangzeb] make any reference whatsoever to booty or the political problem of rebellion. The sole motive that stands out in every case is religious zeal. Our Marxist professors will find it very hard, if not impossible, to discover economic and/or political motives for all these instances of temple destruction. The alibis that they have invented in defence of Aurangzebâs destruction of the Kesavadeva temple are, therefore, only plausible, if not downright fraudulent. It is difficult to believe that the learned professors did not know of Aurangzebâs firmãn dated April 9, 1669 and the large-scale destruction of Hindu temples that followed. If they did not, one wonders what sort of professors they are, and by what right they pronounce pontifically on this subject.â
Goel goes over âthe chronology of Hindu rebellions in the Mathura regionâ and concludes that, âthere was no Bundela uprising in 1670 when the Kesavadeva temple was destroyedâ. He explains, âThe first Bundela rebellion led by Jujhar Singh had been put down by December, 1635 in the reign of Shãh Jahãn [and] the second Bundela rebellion had ended with the suicide of Champat Rai in October, 1666â. Goel makes the wry observation that âthe third Bundela rebellion was still in the futureâ. He points out that the professors held that âthe Jat rebellion in the Mathura region [was] responsible for the destruction of the Kesvadeva templeâ However, Goel explains, âThe Jats had risen in revolt ⦠after and not before Aurangzeb issued his firmãn of April, 1969 ordering destruction of Hindu temples everywhereâ.
Bringing in the issue of forced conversions, Goel implicates Aurangzeb as a communal tyrant, who âin 1665⦠imposed a pilgrim tax on the Hindu [and] in 1668⦠prohibited celebration of all Hindu festivals, particularly Holi and Diwaliâ. Concluding with a flourish of Hindu nationalist discourse, âThe Jats who rightly regarded themselves as the defenders of Hindu honour were no longer in a mood to take it lying downâ, Goel states emphatically that, âThe temples were destroyed in obedience to the imperial firmãn and for no other reasonâ. Goel continues page after page to taking up each of the controversial topics that had barely been broached in the Delhi historiansâ letter to The Times of India, including a discussion of the Ram Janma Bhumi movement, which was still six years away from the fateful day the Babri Masjid was demolished.
To conclude this rather lengthy excursion into the writings of the famous, some would say, infamous, âSanghâ historian, Sita Ram Goel points out the ironic nature of historical arguments that emerged as he engaged them. The beauty of the paradox, by which he deftly left his Marxist nemeses/historians having to backtrack in order not to alienate the majority of Indian citizens, may be one reason that they so rarely respond to such scholarship contesting their theories.
When scrutinized carefully, many ironies emerge from their theoretical positions. If questioned, sometimes they will admit that their historical assumptions may have been slanted to propound a certain political point of view, that such liberties were justified in order to combat communalism. Quite often when a rejoined from the non-leftists cuts through their arguments and frustrates a broad acceptance of their pronouncements on various topics they are unable or unwilling to respond, and they prefer to remain mute, resorting to name calling rather than confronting the paradoxes and inconsistencies that had been pointed out.
In this way, Goel attacks their economic theory which he claims they employ to hide the inherently iconoclastic nature of the Islamic invaders/rulers that was codified in the
âtheology of Islam systematised on the basis of the Quârãn and the Sunnah of the Prophet [that] lays down loud and clear that it is a pious act for Muslims to destroy the temples of the infidels and smash their idols. Conversion of infidel temples into mosques wherever practicable, is a part of the same doctrine [â¦.] The economic and political motives, invented by the Marxists, are not only far-fetched but also do not explain the destruction and/or conversion of numerous temples which contained no riches, and where no conspiracy could be conceived.â
This is the same contradiction that crops up when Pakistani historians discuss Indian Marxist and most Western historiographical treatments of the Islamic invasions. Islam-centric interpretations criticize Marxist scholars for saying that Ghaznavi and Ghori and the rest of the Turko-Afghani Islamic invaders, traveling into India on horseback, demolished temples and icons for economic gain, first, and only secondarily in the name of Islamâusing religion more as excuse than a crusade.
PART FOUR
In Pakistan, the historical record is very clear. Ghaznavi, Ghori, Babar, et al entered Hindustan on divinely inspired missions to âbring the light of Islam to the infidelsâ. As Muslims it was their duty to crush the idols worshiped by the pagans, and as soldiers it was their right to take their due share of the booty, as per the instructions of the Quâran. According to Pakistani textbook writers and historians, Islamic invasions of India had nothing to do with greed. Most Pakistani historians defend such plunderous and destructive activity as corollary events necessitated by the dictum to spread the teachings of the Prophet Mohammed. Indian Marxists would rather focus on the economic and political implications of the Islamic invasions, reinterpreting the zeal of the invaders as greed instead of religious fervor.
Sita Ram Goel capitalizes on this irony:
âThe [Indian] Muslim apologists who have been in a hurry to borrow the Marxist explanation do not know what they are doing. The explanation converts Islam into a convenient cover for brigandage and the greatest Muslim heroes into mere bandits.â
Finally, in response to the historiansâ comment that even âthe historicity of the personality [of Krishna] is in questionâ, Goel trivialized their argument, saying that the âSrî KrishNa for whom the Hindus really care is a far greater figure than the Srî KrishNa of historyâ. The historicity of Hindus gods and goddesses is far less important than their symbolic and Puranic or mythological aspects. Goel explains:
âWhat [Hindus] really worship is the Srî KrishNa of mythology. There are many temples and places of pilgrimage all over India associated with this mythological Srî KrishNa. [â¦.] [A] majority of the renowned places of Hindu worship and pilgrimage have only mythology in support of their sanctity. Are the professors telling the Hindus that the desecration or destruction of these places should cause no heart-burn to them because the characters associated with these places are drawn from mythology, and that an iconoclast is badly needed in every case for blowing up the myth?â
Goel also takes up the issue of Hindus destroying Jain and Buddhist temples, and numerous other contemporary controversial historical debates. Goel, with his frontal attacks, and the massive amount of information that he is able to gather, is much despised by the JNU associated intellectuals.
As mentioned, in the years leading up to the destruction of the Babri Masjid on December 6, 1992, many scholars jointly published pamphlets and released press statements claiming that in the past, Hindu rajas often destroyed the temples of their adversaries. The argument proposed that Muslims were not the only ones who destroyed temples, consequently, they could argue by a stretch, that there is nothing anti-Hindu about the Babri Masjid. They felt that this titillating bit of supposition, that Hindu rajas desecrated Hindu and Buddhist shrines, somehow justified temple desecrations by Babar and those who preceded and followed him through the Khyber.
This point is argued much in the same way as the insistence that alternative research into the Aryan invasion/migration theory is driven by the idea that, if the Aryans, the ancient ancestors of the Hindus, were foreign invaders from Central Asia, then the Turks and Afghans who came a few thousand years later, fit into the same category, foreign invaders from Central Asia, then all Indians are also descendants of Indiaâs medieval, as well as ancient ancestors. This argues, that if âall Indians, Hindus and Muslims, are descendants of invaders, then âthose Hindu Nationalistsâ couldnât claim to be the true culturally autochthonous inhabitants of the Subcontinent and it would then be impossible to paint the Muslim minority as the foreign other.â
That most Hindu nationalists adamantly think the vast majority of Indian Muslims are indigenous Indians, whose Hindu or Buddhist ancestors converted to Islam, is rarely considered within the anti-Sangh critiques.
Considering how vehemently Prof. Mukhia, Prof. Thapar, and their colleagues in the Delhi Historians Group have insisted that Hindu iconoclasm was commonplace in the medieval and pre-medieval period, there are really very few hard statistics about this claim and scant existing evidence to support their theory of wide spread Hindu temple and Buddhist vihara destruction by Hindu rajas. After hearing this claim propagated for over a decade, as an accepted "fact" to which those who are anti-Hindutva constantly refer, it would be fair to assume that these historical occurrences of Hindus destroying temples and viharas were well documented. Though there has been scant hard data to support the claim, it had been repeated off-handedly again and again by certain Indian social scientists and by Western academicians, and finds space quite regularly, in the English language media in India.
In Delhi in the Spring of 2000, when I interviewed Prof. Harbans Mukhia, whose op-ed piece about Hindus demolishing temples appeared just a few days after my arrival in India, I asked him what documentation he could provide regarding the destruction of temples by Hindus. He informed me that Prof. Romila Thapar had collected some information that confirmed the theory that Hindus, during earlier eras, had been very active in the destruction of temples. He had some references, he mentioned, âsomewhere in his filesâ. I thought they must be pretty dusty by now since he had used the temple desecration tack for years, and though he is a well published scholar of medieval Indian history, he had never written any papers about this very interesting phenomenon by which he swears. A few days later I met with Professor Romila Thapar and told her Professor Mukhia had said that she could provide information to substantiate the hypothesis that Hindu rulers in the past had regularly destroyed temples in neighboring kingdoms. She said that she had not written anything but that Richard Eaton, an American scholar had recently written about this phenomenon in âthe introduction of his latest bookâ.
In the December 9 and 16, 2000 editions of Frontline published by the The Hindu newspaper--where there has been a steady stream of essays about historiography, almost weekly for years. Prof. Eaton wrote a long article in two parts that discussed in detail the destruction and desecration of various temples during the medieval period. In his article, Eaton attempted to prove this assertion commonly made by Dr. Mukhia and his colleagues. However, Eaton failed to understand the difference in scale and magnitude, separated by over several centuries, that Hindus raided the temples of other kings, usually to snatch the murti, not to raze them. Compare this with the much more widespread, widely practiced, and architecturally devastating attacks on Hindu temples by Muslim armies that systematically destroyed hundreds, if not thousands, of Hindu temples in North India within a few centuries. Politically incorrect, or not, I am pained to point out that there is not only a difference of scale, but it is like comparing apples and oranges.
When I spoke with Professors Thapar and Mukhia I told them that I had heard about Harsha in Kashmir, recounted by the poet Kalhana in the âRajtaranginiâ. The Hindu king Harsha destroyed some temples and viharas44, but most of Harsha's contemporaries considered his actions as exceptions to the usual practice. I pointed out to the good professors, that all of the literature indicates that Harsha was definitely only looting the temples for gold and riches, not desecrating them for ideological reasons. Though the result is the same--the temples were attacked--the intent and the scale of the destruction were very, very different.
While meeting with both Professor Mukhia and Professor Thapar I mentioned one or two instances I had heard of in Rajasthan and Gujarat. I also spoke of an isolated raid over the Vindhya Mountains, where competing Maharajas raided temples in another kingdom and stole a murti (consecrated statue) considered to be endowed with powerful attributes. Then, bringing it back to his own kingdom, the king erected a new and more fabulous temple for the murti. This type of vandalism is a very different case--the murti was removed as a trophy, not as an unholy thing to be desecrated.
In the accounts that I had heard, the Hindu kings who looted the temple of an adversary did not throw the captured statue in the roadway or bury it into the staircase of a religious structure in his kingdom to be trod upon, but, interestingly, built an even grander temple and had it installed with great fanfare. Though the actions may have similarities, the motivations and importantly, the ultimate impact on Indian architecture and Hindu educational and religious institutions was very different.
I argued that these types of attacks on temples were not representative of usual Hindu practice, but in fact were very much the exception to the rule. Even after reading the Eaton article, I was not impressed by the meager evidence. The article offered very few verifiable examples to substantiate this often-repeated claim that Hindus were just a guilty as Muslims for breaking statues and destroying temples.
I suggested to Professors Mukhia and Thapar and a few other historians, in the Delhi G-group, that âthey should stop using that tact about the Hindus destroying temples, because hardly anyone in India really believes them and such assertions bring their competence into questionâ. The evidence that Hindus were equally culpable for the destruction of temples and viharas, similar to the large-scale destruction of Hindu temples and educational institutions by the various Sultans, is simply untenable. Though the left-leaning (some would say âHindu-baitingâ) historians in India cite the case of King Harsh in Kashmir, it is a rare historical exception, certainly not proof of a legacy of Hindu-driven carnage against Buddhists or Jains during the ancient or medieval period. From the data available, the historians who make these claims have failed to uncover any overwhelming evidence to substantiate their theory of wide spread Hindu aggression against non-Hindus in the ancient or medieval periods. Strangely enough, many scholars in the West have also accepted this theory without deconstructing its flaws or substantiating the details.
Very few people in India actually believe the theory that throughout history Hindu rulers destroyed a considerable number of temples. The historians who make these claims are discredited in the eyes of many people in India because their arguments remain speculative and are seen as politically motivated. Those who have argued this point since the historical/archeological battles that raged around the Ram Janma Bhumi/Babri Masjid controversy have provided quite limited documented historical instances where Hindus are believed to have razed temples and/or Buddhist viharas. Though this claim was the rallying cry of the scholars who opposed the Ram Janma Bhumi movement, no one among the proponents of this theory has yet published anything to corroborate these claims, They have propagated this theory as a factual intellectual weapon for well over a decade.
My questions about this issue remain: Why, when Professor Mukhia and Professor Thapar and their colleagues have asserted this as fact, in numerous pamphlets and op-ed pieces, have none of them ever published any scholarly articles to actually prove it, even though among themselves, they all believe it? Yet, why havenât they bothered to document the facts to which they have constantly referred during the past decades? My questions, concerning lack of evidence for this theory were dismissed by its proponents. However, other scholars, the infamous non-leftists, with whom I spoke in India, called this the âmanufacturing of historical myths to suit the âpseudo-secularâ leftist paradigmâ.
Is this the manufacturing of historical beliefs or an undistorted dispassionate retelling of well-established events? Many supposedly neutral scholars in the West feel comfortable when Marxist historians use facts in a specific manner in order to write Indian history, but completely discredit other traditions that are trying to do the same thing, from their own perspectives. Though facts are facts, as so many historians have told me, historiography is interpretation.
Meenakshi Jain continued her condemnation of Marxist historiography, as she critiqued Harbans Mukhiâs speculative theory regarding the possible Brahminical vandals who destroyed the 11th century Jain temple near Fatehpur Sikri. The tone of her criticism of leftist scholars mirrors Mukhiaâs mud slinging at the Saffron archaeologists. While presenting a mini lesson on historiography to the readers, as did Mukhia in his op-ed piece, Dr. Jain wrote:
âUnfortunately for leftist academics, the time for such crude theories is fast running out. A re-examination of religious texts, historical records, and literary treatises has forced a growing body of non-Marxist scholars to reach entirely different conclusions about Indianâs religious culture. For instance, they now believe that undue stress has been laid on the so-called orthodox-heterodox religious divide. In historical practice the division between Hinduism and Buddhism and Jainism was never so fundamental as to foreclose the possibility of mutual exchange. [â¦]Explaining the presence of Hindu gods and so-called Hindu âelementsâ in Jain temples, the scholars highlight a shared religious culture wherein divine figures and even ritual forms were reincorporated, reformulated, and re-situated. [â¦] The doctrinal, ritualistic, and institutional similarities between Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism were too marked to be over-looked. [â¦.] Brahmins constituted the largest groups of monks and supporters of early Buddhism and were strongly represented in most religious movements in India. Several key Jain philosophers were Brahmins. [â¦] The claim of Brahminical intolerance is mischievous and dishonest. The Brahmins were known for their tendency to absorb, assimilate and upgrade deities, not for exhibiting animus towards them. [â¦.] While leftists have accused Brahmins of intolerance, they have downplayed, if not purged, evidence of Muslim bigotry.â
When I questioned several of the well-known scholars comprising this entrenched but suddenly ideologically vulnerable group of elite historians, without a doubt, they let it be known that they did not think other Indian historians could possible be trusted to re-evaluate Indian history, except, as Romila Thapar suggested, âwesternersâ whom, she thought were more objective than non-Marxist Indian historians. In all probability, most scholars or journalists who come to interview these âJNU typeâ intellectuals do not ask such provocative questions and it did seem that my some of my questions were not very welcome.
I was told several times that Richard Eaton had recently published something about Hindus destroying temples. They admitted that even after over a dozen years of propounding this theory, they had not bothered to support it with research. I simply found it amazing that scholars who had made a certain claim, using a very specific tact for all those many years, had never sought to back up their well used theory with any hard data.
As mentioned, the articles published by Professor Eaton in the popular news magazine, Frontline, though they did document temple destructions, could not show that it was wide spread and in particular, he could not, in his article, claim that the Hindus had destroyed murtis, rather they captured them, to increase their own spiritual and temporal power. Not only is the scale drastically different, but the intention was seemingly the exact opposite.
Eaton writes:
âIn 642 A.D., according to local tradition, the Pallava king Narasimhavarman I looted the image of Ganesha from the Chalukyan capital of Vatapi. Fifty years later armies of those same Chalukyas invaded north India and brought back to the Deccan what appear to be images of Ganga and Yamuna, looted from defeated powers there.â
The article goes on to discuss several of these types of Hindu on Hindu events, each separated by fifty years or a century or two. Even taking into consideration the instances of a Hindu Raja attacking a temple in a rival kingdom, there is a big leap between the claim that Hindu rajas are as culpable for destroying temples are were their Muslim counterparts during later centuries. This is simply not true. But most importantly, Eaton never makes the distinction between the destruction of a murti or mandir45 based on revulsion towards the institution represented, in contrast to capturing the murti for purposes of worship thereby enhancing the prestige of the king. The destruction of Hindu temples by Islamic invaders and rulers during the pre-modern period far exceeded any quasi-similar destructions by Hindu kings in earlier periods. Drawing such parallels, as Professors Mukhia, Thapar, and Eaton have done, is making tremendous assumptions in order to justify a certain rather politically motivated point of view.
Arun Shourie, in his critique of historiography, took up this topic:
â[T]oday the fashion is to ascribe the extinction of Buddhism to the persecution of Buddhists by Hindus, to the destruction of their temples by the Hindus. One point is that the Marxist historians who have been perpetrating this falsehood have not been able to produce even an iota of evidence to substantiate the concoction. In one typical instance, Romila Thapar has cited three inscriptions. The indefatigable Sita Ram Goel looked them up. Two of these turned out to have absolutely no connection with Buddhist viharas or their destruction, and the one that did deal with an object being destroyed had been held by authorities to have been a concoction; in any event, it told a story which was as different from what the historian had insinuated as day from night. [â¦.] Goel repeatedly asked the historian to point out any additional evidence or to elucidate how [she] had suppressed the import that the inscription in its entirety conveyed. He waited in vain. [â¦] Marxists cite only two other instances of Hindus having destroyed Buddhist temples. These too it turns out yield to completely contrary explanations. Again Marxists have been asked repeatedly to explain the construction they have been circulating--to no avail.â
Harbans Mukhia, R.S. Sharma and especially Romila Thapar and K.N. Panikkar, as well as a whole list of scholars who appeared as witnesses for the All India Babri Masjid Action Committee, such as K.M. Shrimali, Sumit Sarkar, and others, are railed by Shourie in his book, which is now a classic among non-leftist/Hindu-centric scholars. When I interviewed Romila Thapar she said that Eminent Historians was a âpail-full of abuse being thrown at usâ. She added that she gets âirritated each time creeps like S.P. [Swaraj Prakash] Gupta get up and start abusing me. Or Arun Shourie, yes I find it beneath my dignity to respondâ. Yet Prof. Thapar and her colleagues, do respond, by constantly writing op-ed pieces, issuing press releases, intended to cast dispersions at the Saffronitesâoften alluding a certain physics professor and former journalist. They hold news conferences and make very provocative public statements, against those whose research is at odds with theirs, This is ironically, not beneath their dignity.
The tight coterie of âleftistâ, now called âprogressiveâ social scientists, mostly historians, who are predominantly situated in New Delhi, are very vocal and prolific social critics. Besides being on the warpath against archaeologists, such as B. B. Lal and S. P. Gupta, they particularly loathe Arun Shourie, and paint M.M. Joshi as a monster. Without a doubt, over the years these historians have done some very interesting work and are serious scholars, but they have an agenda. As progressives they view the progress of the nation as their duty, which is a noble cause, but often they discount the means in their quest for an end that reflects their ideology. However noble they describe the goals of that quest to be--national integration, secularism--they feel strongly that their paradigm is the only one that has the sophistication and intellectual rigor to dictate how these national objectives are to be achieved. However there are many others who have critiqued the particulars of their program.
In the historical narrations created to promote this mandate there often seem to be few limitations to their criticism of the religion of the majority of their fellow countrymen. More than one eminent leftist scholar whom I interviewed became rather irritated when I suggested that Hinduism was a tolerant non-dogmatic and deeply reflective religion. After an interview, Uma Chakrovarti, a professor of Womenâs Studies at Delhi University, cried out, in response to my comment âHinduism is the most intolerant religion!â I found it incredibly ironic that among a group of highly placed Indian intellectuals âHinduâ often seems like it is used only as a pejorative term.
Arun Shourie expressed what many of the ânon-leftistâ informants whom I sought out said to me, when he wrote:
âOnce they had occupied academic bodies, once they had captured universities and thereby determined what will be taught, which books will be prescribed, what questions would be asked, what answers will be acceptable, these historians came to decide what history had actually been! [I]t suits their current convenience and politics to make out that Hinduism also has been intolerant.â
The mediaâs attention to the meaning of the Jain site near Fatehpur Sikri and leftist scholarsâ questioning of the motivations of the Indian Archaeological Survey continued through the next few months. This highly publicized and politicized dialogue offers a good glimpse at the stances and rebuttals that characterize the history wars in India.
Mukhiaâs impetuous article that had initiated the colorful rebuttals in the media about this site had, in large script under his byline a sentence that is also the final ominous exclamation in his op-ed piece, âThe digging under Fatehpur Sikriâs Anup Talao, has just about begun and it is already being claimed that it too hides a temple underneath!â This was in reference to an entirely different excavation that was âjust about to beginâ inside the walls of Fatehpur Sikri. Mukhiaâs comment is a sensationalist statement intended to provoke and is not reflective of the intentions of the planned dig. The excavation under the water tank, Anup Talao (peerless pond) located within the palace compound, was conducted based on âcontemporary accounts of the construction of Fatehpur Sikri, a variety of textual references were available to a chamber that Akbar sought to build en closed in water. Access to the chamber could be obtained without the Emperor soaking himself.â
While D.V. Sharma found âa huge jar, 12 feet high and 8 feet wideâ in a hidden room below the pond, the media connected the two digs, and made some assumptions that Akbar may have destroyed the Jain temple. Mukhiaâs claim that the ASI was looking for another desecrated temple under Anup Talao was unfounded and intended to cast politicized dispersions on the ASI, also criticized by Irfan Habib, who:
âthinks that the excavation of Anup Talao is a grossly misdirected enterprise. The contemporary chronicler Badayuni has mentioned⦠that Akbar had tried in vain to build a chamber which would be protected from the fury of the summer sun by a layer of water. This attempt was abandoned because water kept seeping through to the chamber. The chamber was subsequently sealed and Anup Talao used in the following years alternately to store water and to display a hoard of copper coins. Since these facts are known from the textual record, there was no need to excavate right in the heart of a World Heritage Site, argues Habib. Indeed, he claims that the ASI's procedure is contrary to all known principles of preservation of historical monuments.â
PART FIVE
A news item appeared in the Times of India on April 5, under the misleading title, âDid Akbar build Fathepur Sikri over a temple?â The article reported about an âillustrated talkâ that had been presented in Delhi a few days earlier by D.V. Sharma. The journalist wrote that:
âSharma showed slides of the remains of a temple under Bir Chhabili Tila, a mound near the monument along with the existence of a water palace under the Anup Talao, within the premises of the monument. [â¦.] Matching the dramatic tenor of the ASI excavations was the reaction that followed the talk. Satish Grover, Professor School of Architecture and Planning wanted to know if the ASI had any policy on âripping apartâ ancient monuments which were part of the national heritage. âWe all know that India is a rich and ancient country, built on layers and layers of civilisation. There could be a temple beneath the Taj Mahal too. Will the ASI dig that up too?â he queried.â
Whether by âaccident or designâ, both Satish Grover and Harbans Mukhia conflated the excavation of the chamber underneath the pond inside the walls of the monument, with the excavations going on outside, where the desecrated Jain temple had been discovered. These two separate sites were also confused in media reports. In the Times of India article, D. V. Sharma, speaking at the lecture, is reported to have defended the ASIâs Anup Talao excavation, insisting that,
âThe effort was not to destroy the present heritage but only to find out the truth. âWe are here to correct the interpretation of palaces and monuments, not to rip apart monumentsâ.â
The article by Harbans Mukhia had already appeared in The Hindustan Times several weeks earlier, as well as the rebuttal written by Meenakshi Jain, so the controversy and the media debate were already in full swing prior to D.V. Sharmaâs slide presentation. Because the excavations had received such wide coverage, and had already been politicized, there was an attempt, during the lecture to refute Mukhiaâs allegations.
Shortly after the publication of Mukhiaâs op-ed piece, archaeologists D.V. Sharma and S.P. Gupta had both written letters to The Hindustan Times to criticize his critique. When I visited S. P. Gupta at his office in New Delhi, he gave me a copy of both of these letters. He informed me that the newspaper did not publish his rebuttal for over three weeks though he called them several times to inquire why they had not. When it had appeared, it was in a significantly truncated form. This letter written in response to Mukhiaâs hypothesis was the paper that S. P. Gupta had circulated at the talk by D.V. Sharma, mentioned below in the Times of India article. An abbreviated version of the lengthy rebuttal written by D. V. Sharma was published in The Hindustan Times a few weeks after Mukhiaâs controversial piece had appeared.54 The news report in the April 4th edition of the Times of India went on to say:
âBut the fact that the matter had already become politicised was evident, when the Chairman of the Indian Archaeological Society, S. P. Gupta, circulated a paper on the excavations which concludes: âThere is ample proof of (a) the destruction of the Jain temple, (b) the sculptures being vandalised without exception. There is no evidence of Hindu vandalism at the site. What is the other language of this destruction if not âdemolishing templesâ by the Muslims.â
Both S. P. Gupta and D.V. Sharma reacted strongly not only to Mukhia's proposition that Brahmins had desecrated the Jain temple, but to the politicized approach that he had taken in his newspaper critique of the ASI. Both archaeologists countered Mukhiaâs claims with vehemence, addressing the points he had made, they highlighted the errors in his hypotheses, while also bringing his political orientation into question, as he had done theirs.
In his rejoinder sent to the Hindustan Times, âBeyond All Logic: Prof. Mukia Derailed at Sikriâ, which, as mentioned, was not published for several weeks, S.P. Gupta wrote:
â[Mukhiaâs] peculiar and self-contradictory statement is also seen further when he makes the observation [regarding] the location of the most beautiful image of a Jain Sarasvati found lying about two meters from the surface. âIt had been as if placed there with reverence, all others bear several marks of deliberate or indeliberate vandalismâ. But this is not true, it was treated like all other sculptures.â
Gupta takes on a few of Mukhiaâs observations, such as the claim that the area was not known to be a âJain strongholdâ. Gupta sates that âMathura-Sikri was certainly a stronghold of the Jains right from 2nd century B.C.â giving an example of a Jain temple excavated in Mathura. Gupta then writes, responding to Mukhiaâs preliminary politicization of the issue,
Curiously, a historian is trying to interpret this archaeological evidence in the framework of his Marxist ideology. âIs it feasible to consider the possibility of Brahmanical intoleranceâ which spared the one goddess with clear Brahmanical association but others which were, as it were, on the other side of the fence, that is Jainismâ. The poor professor does not seem to know that Sarasvati was not exclusively Brahmanical, it was equally worshipped by the Jains, just see the 12th century inscribed statue of a Jain Saraswati from the Jain temple at Pallu in the National Museum, New Delhi. Further, even the Saraswati image is found broken at Sikri, which has also been admitted by Mukhia but the funny suggestion is that âalthoughâ this was also âdumpedâ in this âdumping groundâ it was shown some respect because Saraswati was a Brahmanical goddess, an observation which is based upon totally wrong assumptions.
Guptaâs letter of less than a page and a half, continues, in defiance of Mukhiaâs pet theory that Hindus destroyed temples:
âIn his write-up, Prof. Mukhia has tried to suggest Hindu-Jain conflict as the probable cause for the vandalism of the Jain temple and sculptures at Sikri without citing a single example from history or archaeology of Delhi-Agra region. On the contrary, it is well known that as many as 27 Jain and Brahmanical temples were destroyed near Qutab Minar site by the Muslim Sultan of Delhi named Qutbuddin Aibak in an inscription which he himself got engraved.â
Gupta, undoubtedly provoked by Mukhiaâs politicized side-swipe, returns an equally politicized retort, âThis is the kind of history that the Left historians are trying to write, fact or no fact, they must plead on behalf of their Muslim clientsâ.
Shortly after Mukhiaâs now infamous article about Hindu iconoclasm against Jains appeared in the newspaper, D.V. Sharma sent The Hindustan Times a seven page, very detailed letter, objecting to Mukhiaâs interpretation and also Mukhiaâs biased attitude. He engaged the issues raised by Mukhia, and criticized him for his lack of knowledge not only about archaeology, but linguistics, geography, psychology, ethnography, history both textual and oral, and his amateurish attempts to incorrectly and selectively take partial knowledge and from that deficient position, to extrapolate, what Sharma considered to be an archaeologically preposterous and unscientific theory. More than that, Sharma objected to Mukhiaâs politicization of this excavation site: Mukhiaâs statement that it was part of the BJP governmentâs efforts to advance a particular âversion of Indian historyâ.
Sharma begins by describing the yearlong process of surveying a 25 km radius, and checking âepigraphical evidencesâ through which they determined there might be a temple under the Bir Chhabili mound, considered to be similar to the âfive temple-sites [known] to exist at Sikri villageâ. He explained that before carrying out the excavation, they had done âhard and tough fieldwork in situâ (original emphasis).
Beginning on the second page of the seven-page letter, in a long paragraph, this archaeologist from the ASI takes up the topic of Mukhiaâs assertion that Hindus desecrated Buddhist viharas. I reproduce this paragraph in full because it is indicative of the voluminous data from which archaeologists can draw to discredit this standard claim of leftist historians, but, as well, it captures the sheer astonishment that many scholars experience when analyzing what they consider to be a convoluted version of medieval India history.
Sharma wrote:
âSome historians have assiduously compiled A FEW instances of the demolition of Buddhist viharas by the Hindu rulers, which they cite, more often than not, and zealously, to dilute the vehemence and vastness of medieval iconoclasm. The fact stands out that these few exceptions cannot make the rule and, generally, there was religious toleration in ancient India. Even when Buddhism was dying out (8th century onwards), there were Buddhist monasteries and viharas spread throughout northern India--from Begram to Bengal. Who destroyed them? Does the learned Professor want us to believe that the Hindus destroyed them? He must have heard the name of Iktiyaruddin Muhammad bin Bakhtiyar Khalji who demolished a large number of these Buddhist viharas, burnt laks of precious manuscripts preserved in them, and butchered thousand of bhikshus living in them, on his way from Delhi to Bengal (c. 12th century A.D.).
âThe question is of âiconoclasmâ let loose by a Mahmud Ghaznavi (1001-1025), a Friuz Tughluq (1351-1387), a Sikandar Lodi (1488-1517), and, above all, an Aurangzeb (1658-1701) vis-Ã -vis the Hindu and Jaina temples? The learned Professor of History of such a high citadel of learning as the Jawaharlal Nehru University, must surely have read the Black Decree of Aurangzeb issued on 8th April 1669, ordering the governors of all provinces to destroy schools and temples of the non-believers, and report compliance. And he must also have read the âdetailed complianceâ recorded in Saqi Mustâan Khanâs Maâathir-I-âAlamgiri. Why does he want us to forget or ignore these established facts of history, when we have excavated a site where remains of a temple and desecrated images, in large numbers, are unearthed? Who destroyed the temple and the sculptures? Did the Hindus do it?
âThe learned Professor is not aware that at least the Hindus and the Jainas (who also inter-marry) lived in total amity and built their religious shrines together, at the same place, as at Ellora, Khajuraho, Osain and scores of other places. There is not a single instance where the Hindus could have demolished a Jaina temple and such a concealed suggestion in the learned Professorâs writing is absurd. Here, at Fatehpur Sikri, we have excavated a temple and mutilated Jaina images, with conchoidal fracture marks, and we are concerned with the historical fact of medieval iconoclasm, all that scholarly acrobatics so laboriously made by the learned Professor, in the first few paragraphs of his article is absolutely irrelevant and wide off the mark and the very title of his learned epistle is as misleading as it is misconceived.â
Sharma then spends five typed pages taking up each of Mukhiaâs points, one by one. First he describes the pit, and explains the ancient method of disposing of damaged statues, in a âvisarjana (sacred disposal)â. Sharma writes,
A pit made carefully of stone slabs has been excavated by us and most of the Jaina images (about 30) have been recovered from this pit. [â¦.] It was not a âdumping groundâ. The learned Professor does not know that even broken images were not âdumpedâ like garbage, they were reverentially buried. When he called it a âdumpingâ, he deprives it of the element of adoration with which such âvisarjanaâ was made. The pit is still existing in situ in the section of a quadrant. Perhaps, bias blurs the vision more than anything else. [â¦.] [B]efore attributing the site as âdumping groundâ [â¦] one wishes [â¦] the learned Professor could have acquired a little basic knowledge of archaeology.
In his article that opened the floodgates to this debate, Prof. Mukhia did mention that when he visited the site, he had spoken to two junior excavators of the ASI with whom he had discussed the dig. As mentioned, they told him that the âexcavations had yet yielded no definitive data and pointed to no certain conclusions.â Mukhia, asserts from his two hour visit to the site that âThe parts of the walls still in tact do not suggest any particular structure: either a temple or a house or any otherâ. D.V. Sharma takes him to task for making conclusions without knowing the details of the site. Sharma wrote:
âProf. Mukhia has stated to have discussed the result of excavation with Assistant Archaeologists of ASI. [â¦.] It is surprising that he never cared to discuss the findings and results of the excavation with me, the Director of the excavation before writing in the newspaper. He is a non-technical person and he is not conversant with plans, elevations, sections and co-relations of structures, in an archaeological excavation, which is why he could not see the temple plan, which is clearly visible at the site.â
Sharma goes on to describe the size of the entire temple, which was over 33 meters by 20 meters and had two terraces. Mukhia had asserted that the site did not necessarily resemble a temple, whereas in fact, the walls of the temple were over a meter in thickness, filled with ârubble masonry with mud mortarâ. The temple floors and walls were made from âhuge stone slabsâ that measured â6â x 3â x 1ââ Sharma admonishes Mukhia, saying, âall this is there and one wonders why he failed to see the temple plan in-situ, if he was at all interested to know this factâ.
Mukhia had written, concerning the etymology of the word âBir Chhabiliâ:
âThe mound that is under excavation is known in the village around as Bir Chhabiliâs mound. Clearly it has no religious association (emphasis added).57 Bir Chhabili also does not seem to be a proper name, but more like a pet name, or one which expresses the ladyâs attributes and points to a young woman who was perhaps both romantic and audacious. Little else is known about the site in popular lore.â
Mukhiaâs use of the word, âaudaciousâ certainly is an attempt to de-religify the meaning of the name, to which D.V. Sharma takes Mukhia to task for his uninformed speculative assertions,
The learned Professor is also advised to study ethno-archaeology of Fatehpur Sikri carefully, and traditions, and customs of the region. The site is highly venerated among the Sikarwar Rajput clan of this region and they definitely came to this place for ⦠ceremony of their newborn children. [â¦] Bir Chhabali is a corrupt form of the probable name attributed to their Goddess (Devi). The sculpture of Sarasvati has an inscription at the base of its pedestal in nagari script and Sanskrit language. Not being an epigraphist, perhaps he could not understand the inscription. This is also the reason why he could not understand the cult and importance of Sarasvati in Jain art and tradition. The image is unique in the world when compared with the images of Sarasvati so far discovered. [â¦] The word Bir and Birbani in Rajasthani, Haryinavi, Gujarati, Marathi and local dialects in UP means young lady of extremely beautiful appearance. Prof. Mukhia also does not seem to be well versed in linguistics which is why he could not co-relate traditions and customs, folk sruti-lores58, language of the region and art and he proceeded to comment in the newspaper without knowing the subject viz., archaeology, epigraphy, art and linguistics.
In his op-ed piece, Mukhia had observed that:
âAt the excavated site, the legs of Mahavira in a meditative lotus position are still embedded in a part of the wall and there is no clear purpose of its location. [â¦] There are also several torsos of Mahavira, clearly identifiable because of the flower motif on his chestâ¦â
Sharma contests Mukhiaâs statements about the icons with a long technical paragraph about the history of Jain iconography, the lineage of the Jain tirankaras as well as the manner in which the damaged statues were situated, then he wrote:
âThe learned Professor has absolutely no knowledge of Jaina iconography, how else could have he identified the sculpture of a tirtankara embedded in the wall ⦠as Mahavira? It is not of Mahavira and I would like to bring to his kind notice that not a single sculpture of Mahavira has been discovered so far from the excavation from Bir Chhabili Tila.â
Sharma then discusses the iconography of the Jain Sarasvati statue, criticizing Mukhiaâs evaluation. Mukhia had written that âthe Jaina Saraswati [was] in a seductive posture, with the face strongly resembling that of Mahaviraâ. Sharma pointed out details of the statueâs iconography, requesting : âProf. Mukhia to study carefully the iconography of Jain Sarasvati and brahmanical Sarasvati. [â¦.] Obviously, he has commented upon this wonderful sculpture without being conversant at all with iconography or epigraphy.â
Sharma turns his attention to the dig under the pond within the Fatehpur Sikri monument itself. He took particular exception to the comment made by Mukhia that the ASI was already claiming, âthat it too hides a temple underneathâ. Sharma responded, âThe ASI has never claimed existence of a temple beneath Anup Talao and [Mukhiaâs] statement is false and misleadingâ. Sharma advises Mukhia âto go through the ⦠Ain-I-Ahbari⦠and other contemporary references [that] clearly state that His Majesty Emperor Akbar ordered construction of an underground water palace at Fatehpur Sikriâ. Sharma explains that: âThe excavation at Sikri was undertaken under Anup Talao to reveal and corroborate the reference of Ain-I-Akbari and not to trace an alleged temple which seems to be a fairy tale coined by some mischief mongers better know to Prof. Mukhia.â
As Sharma winds up his letter, he charges Mukhia with dragging politics into what should have been a scholarly discussion. About this topic, Sharma writes at length, with no holds barred:
âIt is widely known that some historians of Delhi, who were hitherto monopolizing the state (read: Court) patronage, have been displaced from their âImperialâ pedestals and have been reduced to their actual size. Their maxim, that they could fool all the people, all the time, has been disproved. Naturally, they are aggrieved and they are making the best of every trifle to embarrass the government on cooked-up charges of saffronization of the institutions, which had been woefully stagnating and needed to be revived. Is it a sin to let in new ideas to replace their fossilized thought? They feel outraged that their intellectual hegemony--carefully fabricated and scaffolded over the years--has been demolished. But Fatehpur Sikri excavation is purely an academic matter and cannot be used as a stick to beat the government. They must settle their scores with the government somewhere else. Prof. Mukhia has dragged the names of Dr. M. M. Joshi and Shri Arun Shourie to politicize this matter, which is as unfair and unjust as it is unfortunate. We never expected a University Professor to stoop so low as to indulge in this type of derogatory exercise. Professional ethics demanded that, before writing to the press, he should studies the site, the temple-remains, and sculptures carefully, without prejudice, and on merit.â
This archaeological excavation in Fatehpur Sikri cycled through the op-ed pages for the next few months. The analytical piece in The Hindu, âTales from Fatehpur Sikriâ, appeared July 22, almost five months after the initial spate of articles. The author stated that D.V. Sharma, did not use the words "definitive view" or "final judgment" when he responded to Mukhiaâs charges. Additionally, as can be seen from the materials presented, he did not grossly misread Mukhiaâs intentions because Mukhia had made no veiled reference to the fact that he felt the Archaeological Survey of India was the handmaiden of the BJP.
Although his suspicion about Hindu on Jain temple demolition was speculative and tentative, without any corroborating evidence, can it be said that Mukhia innocently forwarded this theory, as if he did not know it would generate vociferous rebuttals? More than the provocative words he used, his over all tone was anything but dispassionate and tentative. Mukhia had written strong words, âclearly the mound has no religious significanceâ and he got strong rebuttals, as could only have been expected.
However, the article in The Hindu that summarized the media hoopla concerning this ignoring all the pleas of tentativeness that had been advanced ⦠accused Mukhia of offering a "definitive view" and a "final judgment" on the basis of incomplete knowledge. And plunging ahead recklessly from this gross misreading, Sharma went on to ascribe motives of a particularly sectarian kind at this archaeological site. The Hindu recounted what the author considered to be Mukhiaâs sophisticated analysis against the ASIâs communal archaeologists, âMukhia's plea for an attentive reading that would be alive to the complexities of sectarian strife in the medieval period was not received well in certain quartersâ.
The author comments with alarm, âMost observers thought it curious that Mukhia's plea for caution should have provoked this outpouring of intolerance from a professional archaeologistâ. Yet he fails to mention that it had been Mukhia whose initial article had politicized the issue. The writer for The Hindu charged that this response from âcertain quartersâ was: âa definitive sign of a recurrence of the Ayodhya syndrome which afflicted the archaeological profession rather badly in the 1990s--of discoveries of the past being burdened by predilections and cultural biases of the present.â
In the July 4, 2000 edition of The Hindustan Times, Professor K. M. Shrimali wrote an article titled âThe Rediscovery or India: Why does Fatehpur Sikri hog the lime light when the Khajuraho diggings go unnoticed?â. In his book, âEminent Historians,â Arun Shourie devotes several pages to K. M. Shrimali, with whom he publicly debated these issues on a popular television talk show. Shourie points out what he considers to be lapses of scholarship, and stresses the politicization of Shrimaliâs positioning, citing, among other observations that he had appeared, along with numerous âMarxist colleaguesâ, as a witness âin the pleadings filed by the Suni Waqf Board in the courts ⦠considering the Ayodhya matterâ.
In his article in The Hindustan Times, Shrimali wrote a resounding critique of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), saying the controversy about the dig near Fatehpur Sikri had brought the ASI âunder scrutinyâ. He explained it simplistically, in terms of the Ram Janma Bhumi/ Babri Masjid divide, lamenting that ASIâs âreticence at the time of the karsevak-type62 archaeology at Ayodhya and also during and after the demolition of the 450-year old Babri Masjid, is too recent to forgetâ.
Shrimaliâs association with the All India Babri Masjid Action Committee (AIBMAC) was very vocal and public, and as was pointed out by Arun Shourie, he was one of the scholars most intimately involved with the hearings, news conferences, and pamphlets before and after the demolition of the contested religious site. It did seem at that time, that this group of historians in Delhi were lined up against the archaeologists--a divide that continues. Shrimaliâs observations about archaeological data from the disputed site must be seen in context of the polarized politicized standoff that it has become, rather than simply accepting the verdict of this well respected historian.
Implicating Indiaâs premier archaeological institution as ideologically driven, a veritable arm of the RSS, Shrimali explains: âIndian archaeologists have, in the last 50 years, assiduously worked along a single track. The loss of the fabulous and gigantic sites such as Mohenjodaro and Harappa to Pakistan had to be compensated and the antiquity of the Indian culture pushed back.â
Having concluded that since independence the ASI has been myopic and motivated by jealousy of Indus Valley sites, he then makes the absurd statement, which he sees as ironic, but in context of Pakistani historiography, is nonsensical: âIt is ironical that the theocratic Pakistanâs archaeologists dealing with the cultural phase of comparable antiquity are refraining from establishing any religious identity but their counterparts in secular India are consciously working in that direction.â
Professor Shrimali should have known that in Pakistan the official historical narrative does not reach back to the hoary past, but just to the seventh century, beginning with the birth of the Prophet Muhammad and less than a century later, in 712 CE with the âtriumphant arrival of Islam in the Subcontinentâ. The iconographic relics recovered from Indus Valley Civilization (IVC) sites, such as the horned figure sitting in yogic posture, would in all likelihood not inspire connections with the religious identity of Pakistani archaeologists and historians--these scholars are 99% Muslims.
However, in Sindh, home to Mohenjo-Daro and numerous IVC sites, many people have passionately established a personal connection with a âcultural phase of comparable antiquityâ. The sufistic Sindhi people take great pride in the cultural connections that link them to the ancient civilization that flourished on the Indus River five thousand years ago. In Pakistan there are also history wars, though not as free and vocal, since textbooks and the curriculum are closely dictated by the central government, and dangerously, any discussion of the pre-Islamic period can lead to charges of blasphemy. Several Pakistani scholars are still languishing in prison, awaiting a death sentence for saying such things as Muhammadâs parents were not Muslims since Islam did not exist until after their death. The desire to have a tangible, documented stake, to own oneâs own national or ethnic identity, is common to most groups of people and plays out in many political and cultural arenas.
For decades Sindhis have objected to the dismissive treatment used in Pakistani textbooks and official narratives about the nation, of the IVC, from whence Sindhis claim their cultural roots. To punish them for the connections to a pre-Islamic past that many Sindhis feel, most Pakistanis look down on Sindhis. There are even Sindhi nationalists who agree with the âout of Indiaâ theory for the Aryans, claiming, as do the âsaffron archaeologistsâ implicated by Prof. Shrimali, that there was no Aryan invasion, but that Vedic culture arose from the Indus Valley Civilization.
In his op-ed piece, Professor Shrimali launches into a prolonged attack on B.B. Lal, a famous and well-published archaeologist. He states that: âB.B. Lal, the famous excavator of Ayodhya in the 1970âs, emphasized: âSite was again occupied around the 11th century AD⦠but the entire late period was devoid of any special interest.â
When I discussed this with B. B. Lal in December 2001, he explained that these statements in his report were continually taken out of context, about the layer, being âdevoid of any special interestâ. In Lalâs Ayodhya excavations during the 1970âs, he had been looking at ancient levels to determine dates of prehistoric occupancy. In that search, he found the pillars of an 11th century temple just below and adjacent to the Babri Masjid structure. In the context of his paleo-historical investigation, he had made the above extracted statement in the report. This excerpt is often quoted by leftist scholars, without the sentences before or after it. It is excerpted to prove that B.B. Lal had suddenly changed his position on the Ram Janma Bhumi temple, because he was swayed by the politics of Hindu Nationalism in the 1980âs and 90âs.
When B.B. Lal wrote that the âsite was again occupied around the 11th century ADâ, what Shrimali leaves out, between his ellipses, is Lalâs archaeological data describing the numerous pillars of a large temple dated circa that era. However, specific to that particular report, since the 11th century was not the era under investigation, âthe entire late period was devoid of any special interestâ as far as the current study of ancient sites was concerned. Such partial readings of documents seems to be characteristic of Indiaâs school of elitist historians when they critique research that differs from theirs. Discoveries and documentation are dismissed, because they are written by, as Prof. Thapar says, âfools who do not understand the rules of good scholarship,â fools we are lead to presume, like Professor B.B. Lal?
Shrimaliâs op-ed appraisal of Indian archaeologists continues with a disparaging discussion of B.B. Lalâs work, a condemnation of his excavations, which had been authorized under the Nehru government:
â[Lalâs] zealous plea for text-aided archaeology going back to the 1950âs has remained confined to seek archaeological corroboration of âAryan literatureâ and has never been extended to any âmedievalâ text.â
PART SIX
In his argumentative essay, Shrimali advises archaeologists to investigate medieval India instead of ancient India. However he contradicts himself, and reverses his stance in an official statement made during a press conference held two weeks later on July 17, 2000, to which Shirmali was a signatory, advising that archaeologists should not excavate medieval sites, because they are too communal. Perhaps this problem arose due to differing views of periodization.
Shrimali wrote, continuing his invectives of intellectual superiority over the tainted archaeologists: âThe⦠notion of the âmedievalâ as understood by Indian archaeologists is out dated. Writings of historians in the last 35 years have underlined that it could be used for centuries ranging from the fourth to the 14th, or perhaps even later in some regions of the subcontinent. Most Indian archaeologists are unaware of this rethinking and have persisted with communal periodization fostered by British imperialist historians, viz. Mahmud Ghazni and penetration of Islam marks the beginning of the medieval period.â
Regardless of Shrimaliâs assumption of their ignorance, the issue of periodization is something about which Indian archaeologists and that nondescript group of âthird rate, shoddyâ, non-Marxist scholars, are very much aware. They have long argued that there was no dramatic break in the archaeological record in northern India until the advent of invaders from the northwest, c.1100 CE. The civilization that existed in India between the first years of the Common Era and the beginning of the second millennium, though considerably variable between widely dispersed sites, attested no marked and dramatic changes, until the advent of the Turko-Afghani invasions. This same record of archaeological continuity is also forwarded by a large number of archaeologists to argue against the Aryan Invasion Theory. The Indo-centric scholars would say that the attempt by Marxists to push back the medieval period is based in part on their efforts to find corollaries to feudalism in early Indian society, in order to fit India into the Marxist paradigm and also to soften that marked change brought to India by the Islamized armies of Central Asia.
In colonial models, on the other hand, Hindu history is almost nonexistent, mythical as it were. British colonialists, and Indian Marxists after them, considered that real, documentable history did not begin until the advent of Islam into the Subcontinent. This colonial perspective has been criticized by Indo-centric scholars who maintain that there were innumerable kingdoms in ancient India that are attested in textual and epigraphical records. In addition, the re-periodization proposed by Professor Shrimali and his leftist/progressive colleagues, that situates the beginning of the medieval era in the seventh or eighth and even, as he mentioned in The Hindustan Times article, the fourth century, has been a serious topic of discussion. The archaeologists and other recently saffronized scholars to whom Professor Shrimali grants very little intelligence, have not embraced the colonial model--their understanding of the dating of the medieval period, rather than being out-dated, is very aware of the on-going debates.
Dr. Meenakshi Jain wrote about this topic: âThe arbitrary pre-dating of the medieval period by a couple of centuries, for instance, and the forcible application of the concept of feudalism to this period, seem inspired by political considerations. The intention, in both cases, is clearly to draw attention away from the cataclysmic northern invasions and focus instead, on the alleged political, economic, and cultural decay in India on the eve of the Muslim advent. Credible Western scholars have questioned this methodology and cast serious aspersions on the Indian Marxistsâ understanding of history as well as their fidelity to facts.â
Professor M.G.S. Narayanan, a well known scholar from Kerala, who previously served on the ICHR board with Irfan Habib and in the past contributed to volumes edited by R.S. Sharma, was for several years the BJP appointed chairman of the Indian Council for Historical Research. I interviewed Professor Narayanan in December 2001, and attended a lecture he delivered analyzing the impact of Marxist historiography on the writing of history in India. Professor Narayanan considered the problem of periodization. Regarding colonially constructed history, he said, âthey proposed a division into the Hindu, Muslim and British periods.â Later these religious markers were âchanged ⦠to conform more exactly to the division of European history into three periodsâancient, medieval and modernâ. Narayanan maintained that these markers were useless in the Indian context, âdemonstrating further the meaninglessness of the whole exerciseâ. He explained that in this tripartite system âthere was no sense in searching for the special traits that set apart one period from another in terms of political forms or economic trends or cultureâ. Pointing out that the Marxist historians, who have guided Indian historiography since the sixties, embraced this paradigm, even though âwith each new discovery in the field of archaeology or ancient literature the absurdity of this periodisation became clearer and clearer, but no attempt was made to abandon the frame.â
Dilip Chakrabarti, a well published archaeologist discussed the dominance and hegemony of Marxists historians in India. His observations are quoted here at length:
âFinally, as the ebb of nationalism died down and as the Indian historians became increasingly concerned with the large number of grants, scholarships, fellowships and even occasional jobs to be won in the Western universities, there was a scramble for new respectability to be gained by toeing the Western line of thinking about India and Indian history. There could be no question of loosening the stranglehold of Western Indology in such a milieu. There could not be any thought of looking at its implications very closely either. It is however, also true that rumblings against some of the premises of Western Indology have been heard from time to time, but such rumblings have generally emerged in uninfluential quarters, and in the context of Indian historical studies this would mean people without control of the major national historical organizations, i.e., people who can be easily fobbed off as âfundamentalistsâ of some kind, mere dhotiwalas of no intellectual consequence.
The social scene of Indian historical studies underwent a slow but sure change in the years after Independence. [â¦] .As the number of university teaching jobs in the subject greatly increased as a result of the expansion of higher education in different parts of the country, people â especially those from the âestablishedâ families â were no longer apprehensive of choosing History as an academic career. In all cases these university jobs were centrally or provincially supported, bringing with it the inevitable network of government control and a system of rewards for those who would jostle into the key positions of the network. Since the 1970âs, with the establishment of centralized administrative and research funding bodies in some individual subjects, such as History, the importance of this network increased manifold, and soon the distinction between the âmainstreamâ or âestablishmentâ historians and their less fortunate brethren became clearly marked.
To join the mainstream the historians could do a number of things: expound the ruling political philosophy of the day, develop the art of sycophancy to near-perfection or develop contacts with the elite in bureaucracy, army, politics and business. If one had already belonged to this elite by virtue of birth, so much the better. For the truly successful in this endeavour, the rewards were many, one of them being the easy availability of âforeignâ scholarships/ fellowships, grants etc. not merely for themselves but also for their protégés and the progeny. On the other hand, with the emergence of some specialist centers in the field of South Asian social sciences in the âforeignâ universities, there was no lack of people with different kinds of academic and not-so-academic interest in South Asian history in those places too, and the more clever and successful of them soon developed a tacit patron-client relationship with their Indian counterparts, at least in the major Indian universities and other centers of learning. In some cases, âinstitutesâ or âcultural centresâ of foreign agencies were set up in Indian metropolises themselves, drawing a large crowd of Indians in search of short-term grants or fellowships, invitations to conferences, or even plain free drinks. Quite predictably Indian historians of this period became great subscribers to the theory of internationalism in the matter of historical belief, with the proponents of the Independence generation taking a severe beating. Honest-to-goodness historical investigations based on a close familiarity with the land where the relevant historical forces were operative in the first place were frowned upon; on the other hand, a great show was made of extolling the virtues of the latest sociological and anthropological approaches emanating from the Western campuses, without bothering to find out if such approaches could be practiced by a large majority of Indian investigators who do not have easy access even to the most elementary sociological or anthropological libraries or whether such a blind fetishism did not sometimes lead to a theoretical position undermining the Indian national identity.â
Several years before the Fathepur Sikri imbroglio, an article by Romila Thapar had appeared in Frontline, on August 12, 1997, in the âIndia Independent: 50 yearsâ special edition. When discussing the problem of periodization, she seems to concur with Narayanan:
âThe periodisation of Hindu, Muslim and Britishâor its equivalent of Ancient, Medieval and Modernâis being gradually eroded. The line of demarcation has to be made on the basis of fundamental social changes, which do not necessarily coincide with invasions, conquests and dynastic changes.â
Professor Thapar states, âThe most substantial contribution in terms of further evidence has been from archaeologyâ, yet she dismisses the archaeological evidence when it confirms historical constructions with which she does not agree. She wrote, âThe pretence at historicity was a new aspect of Hindutva ideology and was used to gull the public. It therefore has to be challenged by historiansâ. This comment is indicative that the Delhi historians group are politically selective in the archaeological data that they all willing to entertain.
Professor Thapar continues to be one of the most strident voices challenging âIndigenismâ which she maintains is âhistoriographically barren with no nuances or subtleties of thought and interpretationâ. She concludes with what is almost a reversal of this stance when she states that âthe obsession with the past will continue and historians will thrive. In fact the greater the contentions, the more will there will be a honing of historical generalizationsâ. These two contradictory statements give rise to issues of authenticity and the politics of who gets to decide whose historiography is invalid and whose is to be promoted and patronized. Nowhere are these countervailing tendencies are more vivid than in the disdain with which Romila Thapar and her colleagues view archaeologists with an indigenized bent. Characteristic of their challenges, the Delhi historians rarely engage the data brought forth by these âindigenousâ scholars, but have a compulsion to focus almost exclusively on the contentiousness.
In his op-ed critique of archaeology written three years after Thaparâs above quoted article, Delhi University historian K.M. Shrimali âpointed out a curious asymmetry in the ASI's methods of reporting between two sites--Fatehpur Sikri and Khajurahoâ. In the opinion of Shrimali, at Fatehpur Sikri there was a ârush to judgment and little effort to dispel the growing confusion in the public mindâ. In contrast, he pointed out that âthe reporting procedures adopted [at Khajuraho] have been cautious and restrainedâ. Shrimali discussed the discoveries at the Bijamandal Temple in Khajuraho, explaining the similarities of the two ASI sites, where there are âfigures of Saraswati, Vishnu, Jain tirthankarasâ side by side. Shrimali speculated: âThe site has raised questions of whether assimilative tendencies led to the carving of Jain tirthankaras in a Shaivite temple, or whether subsequent to abandonment by the Jain community, the sanctity of the place was maintained as a Shaivite shrine.â
In D.V. Sharmaâs lengthy letter to The Hindustan Times, most of which was not published, he had also referred to this aspect of the Khajuraho cite to make another point. Sharma suggested that such overlapping of Jain and Hindu shrines generally indicates that among Hindus and Jains during that era, âtoleration and co-existence was a way of life, as is evident from the cluster of temples of different faithsâ that existed at Khajuraho. Harbans Mukhia had used a misreading of the same sort of evidence to try to make the point that if there was a demolished Jain temple, and Jain statues that had been desecrated, it was just as likely to have been the result of Hindu bigots as it was Muslim iconoclasts.
The historical evidence simply does not substantiate that hypothesis. Yet the newspaper audience is told a few months later that the ASI had rushed to judgment and practices a âmotivated reconstructionâ of the past and that Mukhia had only been âpleadingâ for academic objectivity. Shrimali, ends his July 4th article, with the question:
âWill Mr. Sharma tell us how many decades shall we have to wait to find out if it was really a visarjan and not the repetition of a Khajuraho-type development? Till then, his instant archaeology is bound to be suspect and disturbing.â
In his rejoinder to Mukhia, written several months earlier than the Shrimali op-ed piece, D.V. Sharma had mentioned the differences and similarities between the two sites. Obviously he considered the analysis proposed by Harbans Mukhia, a close associate of K. M. Shrimali, to represent the very sort of instantaneous interpretations for which he was now being publicly criticized. Undoubtedly, by the tone of his earlier quoted letter, Sharma found such instantaneous speculations to be equally âsuspect and disturbingâ.
Shrimali asked, playing off the title of Mukhiaâs original essay, âis âthe language of destructionâ the only language that the ASI alone can understand?â Some archaeologists, âfrom certain quartersâ would maintain that Marxist historians, of whom Mukhia and Shrimali are two, manipulate data and propose preposterous justifications to negate the historically attenuated violence of the medieval period. Though Professor Thapar had argued that the divisions were not that simplistic, they certainly play out that way in the popular media, and in the insulting names that each side hurls at the other. Historiography, archaeology and polite academic discussions are lost in the fray.
During the summer of 2000, there were at least two more media events concerning the dig near Fatehpur Sikri. The continuing unsavouriness of the politicization of the controversy, and the seemingly unending stream of trumped up accusations leveled against several renown archaeologists, compelled the director of the ASI to make a public statement, which the article in The Hindu a few weeks latter called, âa long overdue clarificationâ. Speaking to a news agency on July 6, two days after Shirmaliâs critique of the ASI came out in The Hindustan Times, Director-General Mrs. Komal Anand âauthoritatively confirmed that there was no basis to believe that any religious structure was destroyed or damaged during the construction of the Fatehpur Sikri palace complexâ.
Nonetheless, the article in The Hindu, accused the ASI of complicity in communalism,
âThis delayed intervention from the top [of the ASI] may have temporarily laid to rest the controversy. But the larger questions about the political uses and abuses of archaeology are unlikely to disappear quite so easily.â
I asked Romilar Thapar about the worry that many historians expressed about the ominous saffronization of archaeology, pointing to Mukhiaâs newspaper article regarding the Jain temple that was excavated near Fatehpur Sikri. She replied:
âYou have to understand it not in terms of archeology but you have to understand it in terms of political propaganda. If you are building up a theory that the Muslims were dreadful on all scores and therefore one has to project them in the blackest of colors the logical thing that you do is you focus on the one Muslim ruler that everybody has said was very tolerant, secular, gave patronage to all kinds of people, and so on, Akbar. And try and make him appear in the worst possible light. So how do you do this? Youâre conducting excavations at some distance from Fatehpur Sikri and you pull up this Jain temple now, you let slip to the media, âThis is very interesting, there is a Jain temple next door to Fathepur Sikri.â So the press rushes off and you start saying âwell we donât know, itâs a Jain temple and it is very close to Fathepur Sikriâ. So immediately the connection is made that, like in the case of the Babri Masjid, a theory can be now built up that says Fathepur Sikri was built on the destruction of Jain temples. And this goes on being discussed in the press. The excavator doesnât say a word to deny it. One historian [Harbans Mukhia] goes there with a bunch of students to look around and writes this article that openly challenges the archeologists, Then they reply, and the reply was not in terms of âwhy this site was chosenâ and âwhat was the significance of the siteâ, âwhat is its relationship to Fathepur Sikriâ. It was not in terms of the âarcheological relationship of stratificationâ and so on, which every archeologist should know when you are digging a site that is supposedly close to a monument. None of that, it goes on and on accusing Harbans Mukkia of not knowing anything about archeology. It is neither here nor there, whether he does or he does not, he has raised some questions, answer those questions. Okay. Then they get their wind up because in Parliament the opposition says that are going to raise this issue. Then the archeological survey becomes scared because it becomes a direct political issue. The opposition would realize the issue: âwhy they are saffronizing archeologyâ and âwhat do they mean by saying that there is a link between this Jain temple and Fathepur Sikriâ? Then they come out with an official statement saying that there is no connection. Now why does one have to go through many months of this gentle suspicion that there is a connection and Akbar isnât really as good as he is made out to be because he destroyed a Jain temple to build his monument?â
Though well meaning regarding an anti-saffron agenda, Thapar is conversant with only one side of the situation. She could not have been unaware of the seven page rebuttal written by D.V. Sharma, alluding to above, he mailed her one. But she chose to ignore the many pages in which Sharma did indeed engage the issues raised in Mukhiaâs article, âwhy this site was chosenâ and âwhat was the significance of the siteâ. He also somewhat retaliated the hostile tone. Sharmaâs letter, in its entirety, was, according to Mukhia, circulated widely among hundreds of Delhi intellectuals, historians at JNU, journalists, and scores of social critics. As one of the most prominent of those Delhi intellectuals at JNU targeted to receive Sharmaâs rebuttal letter, Thapar was sent a copy of that rejoinder that was specifically directed at her group of colleagues. She said she remembered something to that effect, full of vile invectives, not worth reading. However, had she read it she would have seen that he carefully addressed Mukhiaâs questions.
In that detailed letter, Sharma had dealt extensively with âwhat was the significance of the siteâ. Sharma had stated very clearly, in that letter sent across New Delhi several months before my interview with Prof. Thapar, that the excavation of the Jain temple had no ârelationship to Fathepur Sikriâ. That his response was irrelevant to Prof. Thapar, reveals a pattern. It is similar to the manner in which she and her colleagues have continued to blithely ignore, while at the same time misquoting, a decade of careful rejoinders from B.B. Lal and his discussion of data to back up his explanations. In this way, scholars associated with the Delhi Historiansâ Group continue to chose to pretend that their original critiques remain unanswered and the object of their criticism has only pointed a politicized finger, not pointed out details of the data under dispute. Case closed.
In this technique of dismissal any kind of dialogue is precluded. Most ironic is, though they charge that the archaeologists are not sticking to academics but are keeping the issues politicized, this is, in fact, the precise methodology employed continuously by Thapar and the Delhi Historiansâ Group themselves. They question a scholar for having a saffron agenda, then, act offended when the object of their ridicule in defense responds to the jab by returning the retorts, case by case. As mentioned above, many of these scholars who are pejoratively labeled saffron go into great detail to explain the content and the context of the facts they are presenting. They are opposed to only rebutting the political accusations. However, the numerous spokesmen and women of the Delhi Historiansâ Group do not lower themselves to consider these carefully laid out arguments from whom they consider blithely, âHindu Nazisâ.
Sharmaâs letter did accuse âHarbans Mukkia of not knowing anything about archeologyâ but it also went into detail about how Mukhiaâs lack of knowledge had caused him to miss many details when he visited the site and how that misinformation had caused him to make gross generalizations. Mukhia âraised some questionsâ, but Prof. Thapar chose not to acknowledge the seven pages that Sharma had written attempting to âanswer those questionsâ. Ignoring all rebuttals and explanations, Thapar can then state with conviction that the ASI has saffronized archaeology. She can accuse the archaeologists of hurling âvile invectivesâ in response to âobservantâ politically correct op-ed pieces such as Mukhiaâs.
Romila Thapar spoke to me about what she considered to be the archaeologistsâ penchant of ârunning to the pressâ with each new sensational discovery. She told me:
âThere was a time, and I wish to God that we would go back to that time, when professionals, and especially archeologists, because they are in the field and there are things coming out of the earth unexpectedly all the time. There was a time when archaeologists excavated and found something, the first publication was always in a professional journal, or at a professional seminar where other professionals would also evaluate the materials and sometimes the person that had done the digging would backtrack a little bit. After that had been done it would go into your Illustrated London News or wherever it was, National Geographic. It would be picked up and it would be sort of hyped up a little bit, this that and the other. But nowadays itâs the reverse, here at least, the first thing that they do is to go to the press and say, look we have found such and such or the press comes to them and says what have you found and they are ready to talk. Instead of saying to the press, sorry this has first to be evaluated. There isnât that concept of peer group evaluation before you open your mouth publicly and make a declaration.â
Romila Thapar neglected to mention that more often than not, it is the Delhi Historiansâ Group that makes controversial statements to the press, which the saffronized archaeologists feel compelled to engage. In response to simple announcements, such as planned archaeological digs, the Delhi historians read in communal intensions, and they are ever ready to run to the press without ever contacting the ASI or the archaeologist in question for more information.
Year after year at annual events such as the Indian History Congress the scholars have passed resolutions condemning the supposed abuse of archaeology in India. Press announcements of this kind are continually forthcoming. S.P. Guptaâs counter comments in this regard are relevant here,
â[T]he 'academic debate' ⦠initiated by the JNU historians through their pamphlet "The Political Abuse of History" ⦠quoted several times Prof. B.B. Lal's archaeological findings about the antiquities of Ayodhya [that he found nothing predating the 8th century] because it helped them in their arguments, and Prof. Lal was portrayed as a great archaeologist. [â¦.] The problem began when another set of evidence from Ayodhya - namely the discovery of pillar-bases immediately to the south of Babri Masjid, almost touching the boundary wall - again known through the researches of Prof. Lal - came to be used by another group of scholars involved in the debate. This evidence goes against JNU and other Marxist historians. Rather than accepting the evidence and beginning a proper academic debate the Marxist historians began throwing mud on Prof. Lal's unblemished career of over 45 years as a field-archaeologist. Overnight from 'amongst a few greatest living archaeologists in the world 'he became' a âVHP archaeologist' and whatever he had done, right from the beginning of his career, from 1944, became questionable. But what was more unfortunate part of the whole affair is that his work is being questioned more through the letters in newspapers and not through the academic articles in archaeological, historical or indological journals. This shows their motive.â
Mukhiaâs op-ed piece had concluded with the comment that the ASI was conducting this dig to bolster the communal politics of M.M. Joshi and Arun Shourie. Since Mukhia had originally made this allegation, it would seem to be within acceptable conventions of debate for Sharma to respond to the insinuations. The other pages upon which Sharma explained the details of the dig, to counter Mukhiaâs less informed theories, were not noted by scholars such as Prof. Thapar. Only his defensive response to politicized insults were worth repeating, not the fine academic lines, about the actual excavation site, were remembered from Sharmaâs widely circulated letter. This lack of engagement with the issues, the complete black out of the arguments of the âother sideâ-- so that the debate remains on the polemical politicized plane, is the on-going strategy to paint the ASI saffron.
These same historians who in 1989, authored the now famous pamphlet "The Political Abuse of Historyâ, have continued their assault on the ASI for over a decade. In 2000, they were unwilling to let the confusion regarding the demolished Jain temple outside the walls, versus the underground water tank, inside the palace walls, sort itself out and be duly dismissed as a conflation of issues. Twenty-three scholars representing the âAssociation for the Study of History and Archaeologyâ, which is housed at the SAHMAT office in New Delhi, held a news conference and issued a three page statement, with the names of those who attended the meeting listed on the forth page. The date of the document is July 17, 2000, titled, âPress note: The ASI and Indian Archaeology Todayâ, the same week that I interviewed Prof. Thapar.
In this statement issued to the media, the historians first presented a paragraph about the value of archaeology and then gave a short history of the Archaeological Survey of India, mentioning some of the big names in colonial archaeology, Cunningham, Wheeler, Marshall. They refer to the ASIâs association as a department of the government. But by the third paragraph they begin their case against the ASI and particularly they singled out the work of B. B. Lal.
Lalâs excavations became retroactively controversial in the mid-eighties after which time he was systematically condemned by the vocal group of Delhi Historians. Prior to that, his scientific and detailed excavations of ancient sites conducted by the ASI, which he headed up for decades, were commended for bringing forth valuable information. His work confirmed that there were strata in the sediment that could be traced to textual references about ancient settlements such as Hastinaapura, a city near Delhi mentioned in the epic The Mahaabhaarata. Earlier, in less polarized years, these same âDelhi historiansâ sited copiously from Lalâs work. They held each other in mutual respect. The intellectual chasm cleaved by the Babri Masjid debates drove a political wedge between Indian intellectuals, pitting the âDelhi historiansâ against a whole slew of scholars, especially archaeologists. Until that black and white, left and right, day and night division dramatically divided the field of Indian social sciences, Lalâs work was considered groundbreaking.
The SAHMAT sponsored press release had this to say:
â[In] the case of B.B. Lalâs Ayodhya excavations carried out in the 1970âs, new claims began to be made well over ten years after the excavations were completed: there is legitimate suspicion of afterthought here. Surely if findings are fully and promptly published, there would be no room for suspicion.â
The media statement accused the ASI of ignoring âtransparencyâ¦[regarding] methods adopted in excavations and technical studies of findsâ. They lamented that during âBritish timesâ things were more âsystematicâ and efficient.81 They stated that, âthe ASI has increasingly begun to adopt a narrow and parochial approach to archaeologyâ. This began, they maintain, with the âpublication in 1955 of B. B. Lalâs report on Hastinapur, which aimed explicitly at providing an archaeological proof for the Mahabharata traditionâ.
They claimed that Lalâs report:
âdrew upon him the reproof of the ⦠director general, A. Ghosh ⦠[and] the ASIâs official disavowal of his conclusions. But now as the âSaffronâ forces have come into power, a complete shift is noticeable in official archaeology [â¦] proving that the Harappan or Indus Culture was really based on the Saraswati, and was Aryan and not Dravidian, in its ethnic basis.82 Several official publications of the recent past have also adopted this new fangled designation83â¦. The new nomenclature âSindu-Sarasvati cultureâ is on its way to being given official recognition to replace the more neutral âHarappanâ or âIndusâ culture. [â¦.] Such chauvinistic attempts are drawing ridicule from archaeologists in other parts of the world.â
There are a great number of scholars in âother parts of the worldâ who do not subscribe to this critique that dominates Marxist Indian thinkers. Some recent world history textbooks for US students mention that the discovery of numerous IVC sites in India is prompting a reevaluation of the theories concerning the Indus Valley Civilization. In the past, from Chinese pilgrims and Arab chroniclers, there were numerous investigators who explored the possibility and brought forth data concerning the Sarasvati River.
âIn 1844, Major F. Makenson, looking for a safe route to connect Sindh with Delhi, discovered a huge riverbed, over which he wanted to build an eight-way lane. In 1869, archaeologist Alex Rogue found Himalayan alluvial deposits in the Gulf of Cambay (now Khambat) which could not have been brought there by the non-Himalayan Sabarmati or Narmada. This led him to suspect that the Saraswati must have left them there before she vanished. C.F. Oldham of the Geological Survey of India asserted in 1893 that the dry bed skirting the Rajasthan desert was that of the Saraswati.â
Wheelerâs discovery of Mohenjo-daro in the next century put a dogmatic end to such speculations. However, the term Indus Valley Civilization is itself based on incomplete information obtained in the early years of archaeological explorations of the Subcontinent that focused exclusively on sites along the Indus River. Sir Mortimer Wheelerâs theory that Vedic Aryans raided and sacked the âDravidian citiesâ has been enshrined in schoolbook histories for over seven decades. Nonetheless, since the discoveries of Sir Mortimer, literally hundreds of Indus Valley-type sites have been found in Gujarat and along a large swath of dried up riverbeds across western India, more in fact than are located in present-day Pakistan. The renaming of the ancient civilization so that it does not exclude the parts that are located in what is now India, would seem to be a more neutral nomenclature, than simply Indus Valley.
Members of the âAssociation for the Study of History and Archaeologyâ (AHSA), which consisted primarily of the same group of âConcerned Delhi historiansâ, several of whom often write op-ed pieces in the English dailies and many of whom testified on the behalf of the All India Babri Masjid Committee (AIBMC) attempt to give authority to their views by associating their pronouncement with foreign scholars. Supposedly, the foreign scholars alluded to, who are presumably more objective than ASI archaeologists, have ridiculed the idea of reassessing the naming of the Indus Valley Civilization because they consider that such reevaluations are driven by chauvinistic nationalistic motivations. Many concerned scholars in western educational institutions do shun this interesting if controversial debate based on these fears articulated and circulated internationally by Indian elitist intellectuals
Broadly speaking, this claim about the ridicule coming from non-Indian archaeologists is overblown and not representative of the growing Occidental academic interest in the topic. Such a dismissive handling of the question does not take into account its inclusion in high school history textbooks in the West that now often consider the alternative theories of the Indus Valley/Sarasvati Civilizational region. For careful scholars, fifty years of documentation has become too overwhelming to ignore.
The leftist historians of the DHG and ASHA want to imply that the remarkable finds that have emerged from IVC excavations in India are less striking than those discovered by colonial archaeologists in Pakistan. Though the same Harappan era sites, with terracotta seals, uniform bricks and weights, and so forth, have been unearthed by archaeologists to the east of the Indus in present day India, these group of Indian scholars, primarily historians, nonetheless prefer to focus predominately on the sites located on the Pakistani side of the boarder They invariably discount the sites found in India as politically motivated and too tainted by saffron to even consider.
This public critique, compiled by ASHA for the media, claimed that some âarchaeologists in other parts of the worldâ are predisposed against and therefore refuse to examine new information coming from India. Perhaps these respected foreign scholars, heeding the dire warnings issued through SAHMAT, prefer to bury their heads under the ground, rather than examine the data found there. In so far as there are numerous âarchaeologists in other parts of the worldâ who have taken notice of five decades of remarkable discoveries, ignoring selective data seems to be the only strategy suggested by this group of scholars often known as the âDelhi historiansâ.
B.B. Lal called this syndrome âblindfolding ourselves under a spell of bigotryâ and had this to say about this tendency to deny paradigmatic shifts:
âIt is interesting, nay even amusing, to look back and see how historical theories take birth, are sustained and become so much ingrained in the psyche that it becomes next to impossible for conservative scholars even to have a look at the mounting new evidence which goes counter to their long-cherished views. And this is precisely what has happened in the case of the theory known as âThe Aryan Invasion of Indiaâ.â
In 1994 the World Archaeological Congress was held in Delhi. According to B.M. Pande, whose work as an archaeologist has always been considered to be thorough and objective, along with many other esteemed professionals with long careers in the ASI (Archaeological Survey of India), the 1994 World Archaeological Congress hosted in Delhi was "a disaster". The agitation by a group of Marxist scholars humiliated the ASI urging that it be censured by the World Archaeological Congress, an international body. This group of "progressive" (formally called Marxist) scholars, who often author stridently worded op-ed pieces created a "hue and cry" during the 1994 World Archaeological Congress and "tried to malign the Archaeological Survey of India." According to Prof. Pande, whom I interviewed in Delhi in 2000, "they created such drama we were ashamed". He said that the "gang" responsible for the tamasha was the usual cast of characters, "Irfan Habib, R.S. Sharma, Shrimali, and a few more".
PART SEVEN
Professor Pande explained:
âWhen the Babri Masjid was destroyed, immediately the same group of persons who had joined hands with the Babri Masjid Action Committee started accusing the Archaeology Survey of complicity and some of them used to come to the Archaeological Survey ... they had meetings and wrote numerous articles in the newspapers.â
Prof. Pande had personally been insulted by this "usual gang" as he called them. He said they got in the habit of greeting respected members of the ASI with the RSS hand salute, instead of a simple Namaskar. They publicly and privately abused the archaeologists. âIn the press and elsewhere they asked, âWhy did the archaeological survey allow the destruction of the Babri Masjid?â.â
Prof. Pande was irate at that insinuation. He pointed out:
â#1, ASI is not in the picture at all because it was not a protected monument. And #2, No archaeologist worth his salt would like any ancient structure to be destroyed. Irrespective of the fact whether it is protected or not protected. Even if it was, presuming for a moment the Babri Masjid was protected, was it possible for an organization like the ASI to have saved the destruction from thousands⦠when the entire might of the state could not stop it? But what happened was that all the time they were making allegations against the ASI. Why didnât ASI do this or that... rubbish.â
That is the time when the well known group of Marxist scholars started attacking B.B. Lal, whom Professor Pande knew well and considered him to be "a very objective archaeologist". Pande had worked with Lal at Kalibangan for six seasons. He said:
âI have seen how meticulous he is, how thorough he is. He does not tamper with the evidence. These critics have not even gone for a picnic at an archaeological site⦠not even a picnic. And they make all kinds of allegations... that the ASI is dominated by the RSS... The ASI was not dominated by anyone else but archaeologists.â
In 1994, at the World Archaeological Congress the ASI was called communal and fascist and the Indian archaeologists were decried as hyper-nationalists and accused of advocating the destruction of ancient sites. This was sheer propaganda according to many, but the historians who forced the issue at the international meeting in Delhi, were, nonetheless, given lots of news coverage and succeeded in painting India's premier archaeologists black, or saffron, as the metaphor extends. Then as now, there were many articles in the newspaper "Frontline" and "EPW" that continue to condemn the archaeologists as nationalists. The politicized abuse continues.
At the 1998 World Archaeological Congress held in Croatia, K.M. Shrimali presented a paper against the ASI,
âRegrettably, archaeologists in India were only muted spectators when 450 year old monumental Masjid was demolished at Ayodhya. Let us all rise at least now to redeem the sullen and scarred prestige of Indian archaeology. May we hope that henceforth the Indian archaeologists will not emulate the German archaeological community that played a pivotal role in legitimating notions of Germanic racial and cultural superiority and thus contributing to the political legitimisation of the Nazis in the 1930s.â
Also at the 1998 Croatia WAC conference was a panel of Indian historians with several archaeologists, including S.P Gupta and B.B. Lal, who discussed the Ayodhya situation dispassionately, referring to the artifacts and the facts, instead of falling back of politicized accusations of Nazism, as their critics have done for decades.
Amid all this mudslinging, B. B. Lal and several other prominent archaeologists went digging for ancient Indian history and found it, layer after layer, much to the chagrin of the members of various academic associations founded by elitist historians, such as the âAssociation for the Study of History and Archaeologyâ. In spite of Lalâs publications, reports, and rejoinders, which were forthcoming, within the on-going barrage of abuses leveled against B.B. Lal and the ASI, his rebuttals and responses are usually ignored, and at best distorted. His critics continue to repeat the exact same objections year after year, though Lal has published several papers clarifying and explaining.
To conclude this discussion on fiery battle lines drawn between conflicting interpretations of Indian Archaeology, that inevitably trigger a response from the media, the case of Professor B.B. Lal, will be examined a little further. Professor Lal, was awarded the Padmabhushan in 2000 a coveted national prize. In 1998, he was nominated to the board of the ICHR (Indian Council for Historical Research). This brief discussion of Professor Lal will lead into the subsequent discussion of the ICHR and the controversial recall of two volumes of the Towards Freedom project.
Ostriches and Archaeologists: B.B. Lal and the âUnalterable Facts of Historyâ
âThe fundamentalists want to establish the superiority of the Sarasvati over the Indus because of communal considerations. In the Harappan context they think that after partition the Indus belongs to the Muslims and only the Sarasvati remains with the Hindus.â
--R. S. Sharma, Advent of the Aryans in India (1999)
Two archaeological controversies dominate the debates between the vocal scholars of the Delhi Historiansâ Group (DHG) and the rather unassuming if persistent Professor B. B. Lal. Most recently Lal has been criticized for his extensive work on the Sindhu/Sarasvati Civilization, a topic about which he continues to publish, long past his retirement. And, though his work on the âArchaeology of the Ramayana and Mahabharataâ was retroactively downgraded by the ivory citadels to the moats of ânationalist archaeologyâ, it was his discussion and analysis of his excavation on the perimeter of the Babri Masjid complex that drew the attention and the ire of the DHG. Because of these two contested topics, the DHG has painted all of Lalâs previous work saffron, beginning right from 1946 and his excavations in pre-partition Pakistan. Psychoanalyzing the ASI, assuming that the loss of the IVC sites had created an almost addictive lust for finding Harappan and Mature Harappan sites in post-partition India, the DHG, et al, could scoff at the findings as motivated by a Indian nationalist need to create an imagined trail of historical continuity.
A vehement and very public criticism was raised and sustained by the Delhi Historiansâ Group and other loosely formed alliances of leftist scholars, against the ASI archaeologists. This pattern didnât begin with the Babri Masjid/Ram Janma Bhumi (BM/RJB) controversy in the late eighties, it rather jelled over several decades. Though the chasm created by BM/RJB fueled and accelerated the divisions between contesting theoretical and methodological perspectives, the main reason that such abusive discourse became the norm was because the semi-autonomous bodies directing historiography in India were for several decades dominated by leftist intellectuals such as Irfan Habib, R.S. Sharma, K.M. Shrimali, who were, so to speak, the leaders of the crusade against the ASI.
Their stance was official and well known, there was little room for debate. Far fewer Marxists opted for archaeology than history, perhaps because historiography is more theoretically based, and archaeology is concrete, with surprises constantly rising from the earth to shatter old theories. In this brief final section about archaeological disputes, I draw from rebuttals written by Mr. B. B. Lal, juxtaposing these with the critiques leveled against him that continue to appear in the popular media.
In the early l950s B. B. Lal began his study of the archaeological sites associated with the Mahabharata. His work at Hastinapura Indraprastha, Purana Qila and other related excavations revealed a common material culture of âPainted Grey Ware [â¦] ca. 1100 to 800 BCâ. His path breaking findings were first published in Ancient India, (Cambridge) in 1954-55.91 Several other publications were forthcoming. Through the years, Lal trained many of Indiaâs foremost archaeologists. He served as the Director General of the Archaeological Survey of India and as the Director of the Indian Institute of Advanced Study, Simla, among other academic and bureaucratic posts.
Lal undertook the Ramayana phase of the project, using the same methodology applied to his Mahabharata excavations. In order to investigate the historicity of the epics, he carefully selected several sites, based on descriptions of geographical locations mentioned in the ancient texts. This methodology reflected a worldwide interest in textually referenced archaeological investigations that had provided rich information from Israel, Persia, Greece, and could be applied to areas where recognizable geographical references were part of indigenous narratives. The work on the Ramayana project lasted twelve years, from 1975 to 1986 and was first reported in Antiquity, vol. LV, England, 1981, pp. 27-34. Throughout his distinguished career, Professor Lal has produced a long bibliography of excavation-reports and research papers, published in India and abroad.92
In 1988, at an international conference, New Archaeology and India, organized by the Indian Council of Historical Research, Lal presented a lengthy paper titled âHistoricity of the Mahabharata and the Ramayana: What has Archaeology to say in the Matterâ. According to Lal, he submitted his 60 page paper to the ICHR and though he made ânumerous enquiriesâ for several years, he was repeatedly told that the proceedings were, âin the pressâ. Lal later surmised, that because his report âwent counter to [the] views [of] the then authorities of the ICHR [they] withheld the publication of the paperâ. Finally, according to Lal, due to the long delay, the 60 page, fully illustrated paper was âhijackedâ, because of its great interest, and published in a Hindu-centric journal, The Manthana.
As will be seen in the following discussion of the recall of the Towards Freedom project, this is not the only research that was withheld from publication by the pre-BJP era ICHR. Under the directorship of Irfan Habib, P.N. Chopra was also censured for not privileging a left-centric presentation. There are many internal rumblings disassembling the hegemonic discourse. The big question is, can the multiple voices survive the changing of the generational guard, embracing and publishing theoretically polished âindigenousâ historiographies, with an interest that transcends religious circumstances?
Given the independent nature of the press in India, there does exist English language as well as vernacular journals that discuss with articulate dispassion the issues that are taboo or ignored in the major English dailies, from where social scientists and humanities scholars in the West get their quick fix social and political updates. In the March 14, 2002 Free Press Journal93 M.V. Kamath brought to the readersâ attention, that âArchaeologist (Madras Circle), K. K. Muhammad said:
âI can reiterate this (i.e. the existence of the Hindu temple before it was displaced by the Babri Masjid) with greater authority - for I was the only Muslim who had participated in the Ayodhya excavations in 1976-77 under Prof. Lal as a trainee. I have visited the excavation near the Babri site and seen the excavated pillar basesâ. [â¦] âThe JNU historians have highlighted only one part of our findings while suppressing the other. I often wondered why Prof. Lal is keeping quiet about it while JNU group went on a publication spreeâ. Muhammad was to add; âAyodhya is as holy to Hindus as Mecca is to Muslims; Muslims should respect the sentiments of their Hindu brethren and voluntarily hand over the structure for constructing the Rama Templeâ.â
Unfortunately this type of quote rarely makes it to the pages of The Hindu, and would be considered by âBabri historiansâ such as Irfan Habib and R.S. Sharma to be an exploitation of an Islamic name for the nefarious treachery of the likes of B.B. Lal and his usual cast of archaeological Nazis.
For several decades, B.B. Lal was on the âp-secâ shortlist for imminent saffronization, primarily because of his archaeological investigations into the âIndic pastâ. However, Lalâs reputation remained relatively in tact until February 10, 1991 when he delivered a lecture at the Annual Conference of the Museums Association of India, titled, âThe Ramayana: An Archaeological Appraisalâ. According to Lal, a reporter at the lecture asked him about the âinterrelationship between the pillar-bases encountered in the trench excavated by me and the stone pillars incorporated in the Babri Masjid and further whether there was any temple underneath the Masjid. I replied, as any archaeologist would have: âIf you do want to know the reality, the only way is to dig underneath the mosque.â
The news report went on to say:
âSome of the pillar-bases, Prof. Lal said, lay under the edge of the trench on the side of the Babri Masjid and it was likely that there may exist more such bases in that direction. It was also probable that the stone pillars incorporated in the mosque and the pillar bases found in the excavation hardly half a metre below the surface may belong to a structure that existed at the site prior to the construction of the mosque. In order to verify this and to obtain a clear picture of the preceding structure, it would be necessary to carry out further excavations in the area including that underneath the mosque. Prof. Lal said it was essentially a politica1 issue rather than an archaeological one and added that the sooner it was settled amicably the better would it be for the country.â
Professor Lal was astonished that, though his above quote appeared on 12th of February, by âthe very next day twenty eminent historians [had already] issued a statement [picked up by the media] casting serious aspersions on my innocuous suggestionâ96. He later added, curious about the efficiency of the orchestrated condemnation,
One really wonders at the secret mechanism devised by these historians to prepare and align the statement in a single day when they are physically located variously at Kurukshetra, Delhi and Patna?
The statement of these twenty scholars in The Hindustan Times, complied for the press with incredible speed, appeared on February 13th, a day subsequent to the article reporting Lalâs suggestion that an excavation of the Babri Masjid could help to prevent the social divisions that had arisen around the contentious site. The leftist historiansâ group in a collective reprimand, lamented that B.B. Lal had crossed over to the Saffron side. The scholars who signed on to the instantaneous critique
âdeplored as unfortunate that professionals should tend to lose proper sense of Indiaâs past âunder the impetus of the current Hindutva campaignâ. The statement referred to the observation made by Mr. Lal in his lecture two days ago.â
This group letter argued that when Mr. Lal had suggested âfresh excavations at the site of the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya [he was] fulfilling the demand of those who wanted the Babri Masjid to be demolished to construct the temple at that site.â Though he had only suggested that an investigation under the mosque was technically the best way to determine if there had been a temple there, the article submitted to the press by the group of concerned historians, asserted that they had found his suggestion, to be âhighly disquietingâ. These scholars, many of whom were witnesses for the Babri Masjid Action Committee, commented authoritatively that âthe pillars found in the structure of the Masjid ranged from the 14th century and âseem to have been brought from various structures outside the Masjid to decorate itâ.â
Professor Lal âissued a rejoinder which appeared [five fast days later] in The Statesman, New Delhi, dated February 18, l991:
âFurther excavation within the floor area of the Babri Masjid without in any way harming the structure is necessary to know what actually preceded the mosque at Ayodhya, according to former Archaeological Survey of India Director General, Mr. B. B. Lal, reports UNI. If both the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and the All-India Babri Masjid Action Committee had honest intentions to know what actually preceded the mosque, they should not shy away from further excavations, the noted archaeologist said in a lengthy rebuttal to the comments made by some historians in regard to his lecture at Vijayawada recently. âWhy should the contending parties shy away from further excavation, unless they are afraid of facing the truth?â he asked.
From this moment on Lal has been repeatedly accused of âfalsifying records and withholding informationâ. The above described controversy cycled back through the pages of the English dailies in the summer of 1998 when the newly elected BJP government made its first round of nominations to fill vacancies on various boards. As in the past, when the council is reconstituted every three years, some of the scholars who have been serving on the board are retained and some are replaced. In 1998 B.B. Lal was asked to continue serving on the ICHR board. Because K.N. Panikkar and several other leftist scholars who had served multiple terms in the past, were not asked to remain on the board, they raised a hue and cry that the ICHR was being saffronized.
This view was carried widely in the English media, and it was during this period of time when Arun Shourie publicly took on K.N. Panikkar and K.M. Shrimali. Typical of the mediaâs treatment of the BJP is this âverbatim accountâ of an interview that appeared in Frontline in July 1998.99 Sukumar Muralidharan, an avowedly anti-BJP journalist of The Hindu, interviewed Murli Manohar Joshi, the Union Minister of Human Resource Development (HRD) regarding the âreconstitution of the Indian Council for Historical Researchâ. I have quoted most of the questions and answers from what I consider to be a mockery of an interview because it clearly shows that journalists who are lined up with the leftist historians to oppose the policies of the BJP are blatantly biased.
Muralidharan asked Joshi, âThere is a view that only historians of one particular persuasion have been accommodated in the reconstituted ICHRâ. Joshi replied, âEach one of them is a highly qualified historian. Each ⦠is either a Professor or an ex-Director-General of the Archaeological Survey of India. None ⦠is a member of any political partyâ. Muralidharan then asserts, ignoring the qualifications of the appointees, âSome of them do have an association with the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, perhaps not formally, since the RSS does not maintain membership rollsâ. Joshi, responding that none of the scholars attended RSS âprogrammes or shakhasâ, added that he thought it was wrong spirited to make a scholar in to a âpersona non grataâ just âbecause [he] has a different view from you or meâ.
Several times Muralidharan uses the phrase, what âtheyâ or âthe peopleâ âare sayingâ. By invoking this amorphous and highly informed âtheyâ the journalist can assert that the majority of Indians think that on previous ICHR boards, âall viewpoints used to be accommodated, whereas now only one has beenâ. Joshi countered that in his opinion, earlier there had been âa predominance of one viewpointâ. He added that now, âthe boot is on the other legâ. Muralidharan challenges this assumption, referring again to the unnamed âpeopleâ are claiming that âthis is not quite correctâ. Joshi rehashes his stance, reiterating that, âThe ICHR is a body which should contain persons of high academic qualifications. It is not a body of a particular political view or a particular 'ism'.â However, Muralidharan again brings up the issue of the Babri Masjid controversy and accused Joshi of stacking the ICHR board with scholars âassociated with [â¦] the Vishwa Hindu Parishadâ, four of whom âwere actively involved in the campaignâ to bring down the mosque.
At this point, though the printed word does not really shout, it can be inferred by the tone of the interview, that there was a lack of decorum between the journalist and the minister. Joshi told Muralidharan that his view of the situation was âmyopic and untrueâ. Muralidharan responded by naming four names he associated with the VHP, âB.P. Sinha, B.R. Grover, B.B. Lal, K.S. Lalâ. Joshi explained that âThey were all Directors-General of the ASI much before the BJP was bornâ, but Muralidharan insists âthey were all associated with the VHP's panel of historiansâ. Joshi pointed out that on the previous board, there were scholars associated âsome other panelâ, he added but that âdoes not mean I should condemn himâ.
When Muralidharan, drawing from that pool of popular knowledge from which he commonly draws says, âthe point is made that earlier there were both Mandir and Masjid historians in the ICHR. Now there are only Mandir historiansâ, the tit for tat takes over. Joshi counters that such a view is false and that other people might âsay that formerly there were only Masjid historiansâ. Muralidharan is convinced that all the newly appointed ICHR board members are saffron and will not concede that the earlier boards also had a bias and had been involved in politicizing historiography during the BM/RJB episode by supporting the AIBMAC. He retorts to Joshi, âThat is incorrectâ to which the minister responds in kind, âThat is correctâ While Joshi explained, ânobody in [the recently appointed] group has ever supported [the] Mandirâ, Muralidharan points to âProfessor M.G.S. Narayanan [who] was Member-Secretary of the ICHRâ.
The two argue about whether Narayanan actually came out in favor of the Ram Temple, and Joshi concluded, âIn history, the basic thing is that persons who are fully qualified⦠should be there. I can understand any criticism on the basis of academic incompetenceâ. But Muralidharan states, âThe question is not of incompetence but of bias. B.B. Lal, for instance, was accused of the suppression and falsification of evidenceâ. When Joshi pointed out that this was only said by âsome peopleâ Muralidharan added, âAlso by the World Archaeological Congressâ.101 Joshi retorts, âThat is again a body. If you accept that there are groups of historians, then one group says something, the other group says something else. In another conference somebody else could be castigated for something elseâ.
Muralidharan then castigates the minister, saying that âdifferences [â¦] are normally dealt with in a spirit of openness [â¦] it is all placed on the tableâ, to which Joshi replies, âIt has been placed on the table. But it is up to you whether you close your eyes or keep your eyes openâ. Muralidharan again brings up B.B. Lal saying that he âhas refused to submit his site notebooks and excavation records from Ayodhya for scrutiny by other historiansâ. At this point, Joshi ends the interview by saying, âIs this an interview or are you entering into a debate? You may have your own personal view, but as a correspondent you should be conducting an interview.â
Two weeks prior to the publication of this aggressive ill-informed interview, an editorial titled âTampering with historyâ had appeared in the June 12, 1998 edition of The Hindu the parent publication of the magazine Frontline. The Editor of The Hindu, had criticized B.B. Lal because of his nominated to serve another term on the ICHR. A similar hoopla had not accompanied his nomination three years earlier by a non-BJP government. Since B.B. Lal was the object of the editorâs scorn, he took it upon himself to respond and point out what he perceived to be errors in the editorial. On July 1st, Lalâs rejoinder was published in The Hindu, and three days later in the same paper the confrontational interviewer, Mr. Muralidharan again accused Prof. Lal of suppressing facts and falsifying evidence, completely ignoring the rebuttal that had just been published. Lal had written:
âSince I happen to be one of the eighteen persons nominated by the Government on the Council, the editor took the opportunity to have a dig at me. He made three distinct allegations. To quote:
(i) His (i.e. my) initial conclusion was that there was no evidence to suggest the âhistoricityâ of the Ramayana;
(ii) Even now he refuses to hand over his field diaries to ASI and throw these open to fellow archaeologists; and
(iii) Professor Lal began echoing the Sangh Parivar and even claimed to possess âclinchingâ evidence suggesting that the Babri Masjid stood on the ruins of a Hindu Temple.â
These three accusations are still brought forward against Prof. Lal, even as recent as 2002, yet there are many places where he has published his response to the above critiques including in the proceedings of the 1998 World Archaeological Congress. He has pointed out numerous times that a few lines of his conclusions about âthe âhistoricityâ of the Ramayana sitesâ are constantly taken out of context. Accusations that he his hiding field notes and refusing to let other scholars read them peppers many of the on-going critiques of B.B. Lal, whereas there is no evidence that any field notes are missing.
Lal confronts these three critiques, but to little avail, since journalists such as Muralidharan are predisposed not to believe B.B. Lal upon whom they continue to heap immeasurable abuse. Responses and rejoinders, if read at all, are not seriously considered, except as enemy propaganda. âIn regard to the first allegationâ, B.B. Lal wrote: â[L]et me make it absolutely clear that at no point of time did I ever say that there was no evidence about the historicity of the Ramayana story.â He then lists several of the papers he published on the subject beginning in 1981 and explaining that the ICHR had not brought out the research he had presented in 1988, he noted that in 1993 the first volume came out âunder the project âArchaeology of the Ramayana sitesâ,â wherein, Lal,
categorically restated [that] the combined evidence from all five sites excavated under the project shows that there did exist a historical basis for the Ramayana.
The frustration of the scholar is apparent when he writes, âI do not know why the editor has chosen to misrepresent my viewpoint and give an altogether opposite impression to the readerâ. Dismissing the allegation that he withheld information from the ASI as âoutrageously baselessâ, Lal reminds the reader that the âBabri Masjid historiansâ saw the field notes âa few years ago.â He asked in this op-ed rejoinder, almost a decade later, âWhy all this fuss now?â But the issue that he confronts head on is the third item that taunts him for inventing evidence that a Ram Temple stood on the grounds of the Babri Masjid. Lal wrote âin some detailâ about this third objection to his work, âsince it is an issue about which the entire country would like to know the factsâ. Lal briefly describes his excavations at fourteen different areas in Ayodhya, âJanmabhumi area was just one of them [where] a trench was laid out [â¦] at a distance of hardly four meters from the boundary wallâ. Lal, in response to his critics, described the âpillar foundations encountered in the trenchâ and compared them to âthe pillars incorporated in the mosque, which evidently originally belonged to a templeâ.
Lal chides :
âan over enthusiastic Babri Masjid archaeologist [who] in his effort to deny the entire pillar evidence, published a propaganda booklet in which he stated that these were not pillar foundations but walls. The most amusing part, however, was that he just drew some white lines interconnecting the pillar bases on the photographs concerned and thereby wanted us to believe that these were walls. What a mockery of archaeology! Another Babri Masjid archaeologist, while conceding that these were pillar bases all right, suggested that the structure concerned was no more than a mere cowshed. No doubt for a person coming from a rural background the cowshed idea was a very exciting one, but he conveniently overlooked the fact that this structural complex had as many as four successive floors made of lime, something unheard of in the case of cowsheds. [â¦] In this trench, just below the surface, parallel rows of pillar foundations, made of bricks and stones, were met with. While some of these fell well within the excavated trench, a few lay underneath its edge towards the boundary wall of the Mandir Masjid complex.â
PART EIGHT
Elsewhere he argues that the Babri Masjid:
âprotagonists are ⦠hell-bent on rejecting the historicity of the Ramayana. Their motivation is not far to seek: if they succeed in controverting the very historicity of Rama it would be much easier for them to argue that as there was no Rama there could not have been a Janma-Bhumi (birthplace), much less a temple there. And lo and behold, they complain that the âAyodhya diggings did not confirm the traditional notions of chronology of the so-called âsacredâ texts or even of the âepicâ story. It provided a rude shock insofar as the Rama saga centering around Ayodhya of the Tretayuga was not shown to be hundreds of thousands of years oldâ. What a demand!â
Perhaps B.B. Lal has employed this ironic voice, because he has been forced to repeatedly explain the same erroneous criticism of his work that has been thrown at him over and over again in endless editorials. In his published rejoinders, he has tried for more than a decade to point out that his criticsâ statements concerning his work are incomplete. Yet, year after year, they repeat the same partial data to underscore their assertions. Journalists, such as the editor of The Hindu, remain unimpressed by the data offered, seeming not to have read the rebuttals that are published in their newspapers.
Lal has now, in the minds of leftist scholars and Muralidharan and N. Ram-type journalists, become the saffron icon of Hindutva archaeologists. He is accused of manufacturing or falsifying data, when that data does not agree with the theories of the âBabri historiansâ. He is accused of hiding data that, these same historians claim must have existed, but cannot prove because of Lalâs treachery. This tact of attacking Lal is not limited to the English dailies, but his name is also brought up in the Lok Sabha from time to time by members of the opposition, particularly from the various Communist Parties, when they are seeking an example of a scholar whom they consider to be an opportunist having given up his secular scholarly principles in order to court government funds, or someone who is so completely incompetent that they could not be trusted to serve on the board of directors of governmental bodies such as the ICHR.
As argued at length, neither of these descriptions fits Professor Lal; he is neither an opportunist, incompetent, nor treacherous. His work is highly prized and he is known as a careful archaeologist. It is precisely because he has not shied away from certain debates that he has become controversial. In many ways, the controversies allowed him certain opportunities to continue his investigation into the politically incorrect but fascinating work on the Sarasvati River. Another tack used to attack Prof. Lal are the production of hair splitting articles mulling over Lalâs presumed bias in the interpretation of Painted Grey Ware sites and Carbon 14 dating and alluvial deposits. These technically dense reports often find their way into the media as well, recently in regards to the Aryan invasion and Sarasvati River.
But even these attempts to caste academic aspersions are not limited to a consideration of the data and inevitably also include statements such as Irfan Habib made about Dilip Chakraborti, âwhose sympathies with the ideological predilections of mainstream Indian archaeology have been especially marked in recent years.â What else has been marked in these years is the sustained attack against âmainstream Indian archaeologyâ and the disengagement with artifacts and facts. This discussion of the saffronization of Professor B.B. Lal offered a clear example of a scholar who is scapegoated. It has also shown how the DHG and ASHA have vengefully targeted âmainstreamâ Indian archaeologists. This division causes a rupture in the disciplines and has retarded the development of Indian historiography.
The above section highlighting the battles between leftist historians and âmainstreamâ Indian archaeologists, deserves an obituary rather than a conclusion. Given the tone of the debate, it is difficult to see a time when these schools of scholars will be able to create a healthy environment where disagreements are discussed and importantly, differences are respected.
The debate between Dr. Lal and the DHG brought up numerous points of discord, contentious issues in the narrative of "What is India?". There will never be a final interpretation of historical events. The past is fluid, this slipperiness means that our understandings of history are experienced selectively and those partial views and groundings impact the present. In a complex country like India, there are multiple presents acting simultaneously.
Abdul Kalam, the scientist who recently became the President of India, was called pejorative names by Muslim and Marxist leaders ostensively because he agreed to serve his country, at the behest of the Indian Nationalist BJP government. When someone of his fame is flayed in the English dailies for being too liberal, or too trans-India, too enamored by Indiaâs civilizational glories, how can someone like B.B. Lal, of far less public stature escape condemnation for presenting conclusions that could support patriotic, pro-Indian, trans-Subcontinental perspectives?
It may be astonishing to realize that not until Republic Day in January 2002 were ordinary Indian citizens allowed to fly the Indian flag. Up until that day, almost fifty-five years after independence, only government elites were allowed to fly the flag. Whether a holdover from the Raj--keeping the colors in the hands of the rulers, or an inherent fear of nationalism on the part of the framers of the Indian constitution, patriotism has not been encouraged, and the narrative of Indian history reflects that negative stance, with a focus on invasions and loss, the belittling of the indigenous self. The contributions of Abdul Kalam and B.B. Lal represent a hope for a bright future by bringing out what is best in India, and a bond with a history that is conducive to sustainable development in a post-traditional society.
Both Abdul Kalam and B.B. Lal, were condemned for making statements, about continuity of culture and Indiaâs glorious past, that were contrary to the position of scholars associated with SAHMAT and JNU. They became scapegoats. With each of them, their critics are nit picking, hair splitting, and retroactively politicizing decades of their work. The critics from the Delhi Historians Group, whom Arun Shourie might call the coterie of leftist historians (K.M. Shrimali, R.S. Sharma, H. Mukhia, R. Thapar, K.N. Panikkar, D.N. Jha, etc., etc.), preface their critiques of Lal and other scholars and even Kalam, with dire warnings that they have embraced cultural chauvinism, sold out objective secular scholarship, and are now using their work to further fascism. For them it is simplistic, you are either with them in their red fort of Indian intellectualism or you are a genocidal rapist.
The tone of the debate is intentionally rancorous and kept at a shrill pitch by that group who screams in the press and the Lok Sabha about the Talibanization of India by the "brigades" of murderous Hindutva Nazis... these viewpoints, such as from Communalism Combat, are even carried into hearings in the chambers of the US congress. In my opinion, this polarization is a huge problem. The coterie of leftists would be loath to discover any co-terminus goals with their saffron nemeses. They only read the rejoinders to their barrage of critiques as enemy propaganda, they don't take note of any engagement and adjust their information. Their only goal is to denigrate not to integrate or invite open debate.
Scholars from the Delhi Historians Group, ASHA, or other loosely organized acronyms housed at SAHMAT and JNU, are loath to descend to the unscholarly superstitious level of those dreaded Sanghis, also known as archaeologists. It is of great concern that the name Hindu is being dragged through the dirt by prefixes and suffixes such as Nazi and fascist and murdering rapists. If anyone disagrees, those pejoratives are also pasted to his or her name. This lack of engagement has caused a great loss of academic progress.
Certainly it would be beneficial if the debate were to focus on the issues and had less name calling and less sensationalizing. But even in the West, this is the case. At conferences and among scholars, I have been told that before I open my mouth to mention fascinating archaeological finds such as Dholavira, Kalibangan, Rakhigarhi, and other "Indus Valley" sites located in what is now geographically India... that I should first, before even saying or writing the controversial words "Sarasvati River" ... that I must stress very clearly, "I am against genocide in Gujarat". These day a scholar can't even mention the fact that Harappan/Indus Valley sites, based on important research conducted over the last few decades, are more aptly seen as a part of a greater Indus/Sarasvati culture, because many more sites have been found to the east of the Indus.
A discussion of these sites excavated by the ASI (Archaeological Survey of India) causes critics to claim that the ASI has been high-jacked by Hindutva, even when the ASI's research is corroborated by the work that has been done along the Ghaggar River in Pakistan by Prof. Mughal, who can not be said to be a Hindu Nationalist. Simply using the phrase, "Indus/Sarasvati" triggers a knee-jerk response. Scholars are obliged to go through agni pariksha time and again, regardless of the cold hard archaeological data that there is to discuss. Before speaking about terra cotta seals, bathing ghats, uniform sized bricks, excavated in Gujarat and Rajasthan and Haryana, the speaker first has to appear before the imaginary House on Un-Indological Activities and swear that they have never or would never murder minorities.
I must say that such a required caveat, stifles what should be a lively discussion about an interesting topic. Even so, among many scholars of Indian (South Asian) studies.... you are painted black if you do not ground yourself in accepted theories such as the Aryan Invasion/Migration, or if you look at the medieval period through a lens that includes culture and religion, as well as "accepted" approaches such as economics and government. If you mention Nalanda University, that had tens of thousands of students from all over India (even from foreign countries), studying a broad range of subjects, from Sanskrit to science, you are not allowed to mention that it was destroyed by Khilji⦠don't bring that up. If you do, you will be told that the Muslims only put the finishing touches on the end of Buddhism in India (which had been corrupted by Tantrism anyway), because the Brahmans (or the Brahmanism trope) had already destroyed most of the Buddhist viharas before Islamic invaders arrived.
If you point out that Hindus and Buddhists all studied at Nalanda and they taught the Vedas and the Buddhist texts, in Prakrits and Sanskrit, and had both pundits and bhikshus teaching there--a history of practices that seem to point out that the communities co-existed--you are called a romantic, trying to "prop up a Golden Age of Indian history that never existed except in the fantasy of Orientalists and Indian Nationalists". And you are told that you "didn't do your penance prior to speaking, please go back and repeat that you are not pro-genocide. Imagine that!!! Communalizing Nalanda!!!" Who's in denial here?
To tell you the truth this political problem has paralyzed the field, truly gummed it up. It is frustrating because those that demand the âagni parikshaâ hold the reigns of academia. Scholars are cowed into silence if they see certain correlations in data that may be frowned upon by their outspoken colleagues who see politics in every archaeological dig or every new or alternative interpretation.
These self-appointed tenured gatekeepers refuse to discuss the alternative perspectives because (1) they had already analyzed the Vedas, Upanishads, Indian historiography, and tucked away all that can be said ["ref. to my work (1987, 1991)" etc.]. And. most importantly, (2) any consideration of "alternative interpretations" is automatically "contaminated, equated with hate and racism, which will undoubtedly lead to fascism in India that will facilitate the resulting holocaust of the non-Hindu minorities" ... all laid at the feet of the dissenting scholar(s). That sure can put a damper on the discourse.... so much for talking about the granary at Lothal.... never mind looking at the curriculum at Nalanda, or ruins of a Jain temple, or the archaeology of Hastinapur, or images of Saagar/Samundra in the Rg Veda, much less emic or etic, or anything having to do with Hindu (or Buddhist, or Jain) community identities in any time period, period.
Subroto Roy, warned that there was a âbrittleness in conversations about India's polity todayâ. There is, I would point out, a destructive quality within the popular media in India (and similarly negative coverage about India in the USA) that adds to the fragility and fuels the discord. Pradful Bidwai, Kuldip Nayyar, are widely read in Pakistan and Bangladesh.... N. Ram is a favorite when he is at his Hindu-baiting best, and articles from "Communalism Combat" are found reprinted, even K.N. Panikkar's forays into journalism are given wide coverage in English dailies in Dhaka and Islamabad, Karachi.
The anti-Hindutva rhetoric, with the word "brigade" used repeatedly, replete with references to Nazis, is quite appealing to the middle class sentiments of Lahoris, those who read the English papers. That is why Arundhati Roy was so warmly received there recently. Obviously, intellectual Pakistanis love to host sophisticated India bashers. But if a Pakistani goes to India, such as the journalist Najim Sethi or the historian Mukarak Ali, or a singer or actress, and criticizes Pakistan, or sings a pro-Hindustan song, he or she is sometimes arrested and often harassed on his or her return
There are many excellent scholars who are stymied and effectively shut up, because they can not stand the heat, the very real personal and professional implications they must overcome are staggering... if they dare to argue against the dominate paradigms. This vitiated atmosphere is destructive. But that is what there is.... a huge self-hate campaign... particularly in the English press, which may ultimately backfire. But at least in the short term, it allows for very little discourse --with battle lines drawn but no chance for debate, no areas of convergence where the defenders and aggressors (whomever they are) can even agree to disagree.
Another paper presented at ICIH-2009:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Reference to India and the Indians in a Greek source: Testimony of Herodotus ' The Histories</b>
Eisha Gamlath
Head Department of Western Classics & Christian Culture
University of Kelaniya, Kelaniya, Sri Lanka.
<b>Abstract</b>
Cultural and civilizational amalgamation between the subcontinent and Europe has already been the topic of discussion in the past decades. This paper explores the same in relation to the earliest historical composition of Europe, Herodotus' the Histories which throws substantial light on India and the Indians.
<b>Paper</b>
The re-discovery of the
ancient Near East has brought to light an abundance of historical material that contributes to the knowledge of the extent and degrees of contact between the inhabitants of the Indus valley, the Mediterranean and of Semitic origin. Out of these, contact between the Sumer or Sumerians and the indigenous population occupying the Indus valley stretches as far as 2000 B.C. or even earlier. (Chapekar, 1982: 1-4; Dandekar, 1962: 57-64)
There is sufficient material to prove that these contacts became spasmodic probably due to the decline of the Harappan civilization. (Crawford, 1991: 150; Dhavalikar, 2007: 85, 86). Despite this decline there survived a long established tradition of an amalgamation of cultures at an approximately later period due to diverse factors like conquest, trade, raid, travel, migration, internal conflict which had directly caused the Mediterranean and Semitic elements of the Phoenicians, Babylonians, Egyptians, Thracio-Phrygians, Anatolians, Syrians to be dissolved into the diasporic context of the Aryan invasion (Dhavalikar, 2007: 168, 178, 179, 183, 188; Garret, 1937: 1-31) Trade by sea between the Phoenicians, Persians and Indians which continued as early as 975 B.C. implies that the Persians could have been responsible for the link between the Indians and the Greeks. The Ionian Greeks of Asia Minor were more in touch with the Persians than the Asiatic Greeks so the Persian Invasion made the presence of Indians felt on Greek soil than on other occasions (Garret, 1937: 3, 6). The immigration of Greeks in several stages along with the Sakas, Parthians and Kushanas are often described as waves of Persian influence on India (Chapkar, 1982: 37). These waves were important epochs or milestones in the history of correspondence between Indian and Greek culture and it is from such historical evidence that the extent of and degrees to which Herodotus is indebted to his own knowledge about the inhabited world can be assessed.
Correspondence between ancient Near Eastern cultures - Mari, Susa, Sumer, Mesapotamia, Uruk emphasize the significance of trade routes particularly those turning eastward towards Pakistan, Afghanistan and the Indus valley (Crawford, 1991: 141; Tosi, 1984: 94-107; Lamberg - Karlovsky, 1973: 1-43). Subsequently, the rise of Persia among other cultures of the Arabian peninsula and the Sumerian plain, at a historically and a chronologically early date seems to have contributed to trade alliances with the sub-continent-Punjab, and Sind in the north, Kathiawar, Gujarat and Maharashtra in the west and political alliances with Kabul, Gandhara and Seistan (Chapekar, 1982: 37). The original settlements of the Aryans being attributed as central Asia extensive contacts between central Asia and the Iranian plateau and links stretched through the Caspian sea into the Mediterranean is yet another chief factor that can be referred to these alliances. Affinities in the areas of linguistics (Mallory, 1989: 147-149), religion (Parpola, 1984: 135; Chapekar, 1982: 29, 30, 31), literary texts (Crawford, 1991: 151-168; Finkel, 1985: 187-202), socio-political issues (Hiebert, 1995: 199), astronomy (Garret, 1987: 360), medicine (op.cit, 351), magic (op.cit, 315-320) are sufficient testimony to prove that this link played a fairly crucial role in the contextual framework of cultural and civilizational amalgamation of the Mediterranean, Semitic and Vedic cultures - particularly the Greek and the Indian.
The earliest written source on the correspondence between Greece and India via the Persian Empire is none other than Herodotus' the Histories (Selincourt, 1972).  The reference made to India and the Indians is actually a by-product, the main purpose of Herodotus being to, 'preserve the memory of the past by putting on record the astonishing achievements both of our own and of other peoples and more particularly to show how they came into conflict' (Histories 1.1) It is important to note at this juncture that Herodotus' records of most cultures and people is enshrined within this framework and it is from this framework that the extent of and the degrees to which contact between India and Greece can be derived. Despite the fact that his early life, youth and adventurous spirit and attraction to cultures other than the Greek his birth place, Halicarnassus in the north Aegean coast of Asia Minor was within the territorial limitations of the Persian empire. Hence he may have been accustomed to a host of cultures which may have filtered to Asia Minor through the influential channel of Persia, like those of Africa, Near East, Russia and the Balkans, Afghanistan as well as had access to information on a variety of topics - religion, philosophy, customs, politics, and language.
Herodotus refers to India and the Indians on several occasions (3.219; 246-247; 7. 467, 468, 471; 8. 562; 9. 589). Scantly though it is from these that the extent and degrees of correspondence between India and Greece could be derived.
<b>People</b>
Herodotus refers to many barbaric and nomadic Indian tribes.
'There are many tribes of Indians, speaking different languages, some pastoral and nomadic, others not. Some live in the marsh-country by the river and eat raw flesh which they catch from boats made of reeds - each boat made from a single joint'. (3.97)
There is also reference to a war like tribe:
'There are other Indians further north, round the city of Caspatyrus and in the country of pactyica, who in their mode of life resemble the Bactrians. These are the most warlike of the Indian tribes, and it is they who go out to fetch the gold - for in this region there is a sandy desert'.     (3.98)
These northern tribesmen resemble the Bactrians whose Semitic origin Herodotus refers to in 1.154 and 9.114. Reference to Bactrian culture as sophisticated and in sharp contrast to the pastoral - agricultural people represented in the Rig Veda is made in recent researches. (Renfrew 1987: 82; Allchin, 1988: 131-41; Lamberg - Karlovsky, 1973: 72). A point of agreement is referred to by Herodotus to Bactrians as having 'caps almost exactly like those worn by the Medes and were armed with their native cane bows and short spears.' (7.69) and that the Indians who had joined Hystaspes and Atossa 'carried cane bows and cane arrows tipped with iron and marched under the command of Pharnazathres, the son of Artabates' (7-69). When considered together with the Babylonians, the Sacae, Ionian Greeks and Egyptians Cyrus thinks that it is more important to subdue the Bactrians an account of their almost unconquerable warlike character, (1.154). If the north Indian tribesmen resembled the Bactrians, then in all probability the former were renowned in war. The affinity between the Bactrians and the invading Aryans in terms of religious and social conventions is already made (Parpola, 1984: 148-149, 150; Chatterji, 1968: 23-24). So has also the more exclusive hypothetical argumentation that the latter could have originated from the former. Nothing is more persistent than Herodotus,' own declaration that .. 'their country is a long way from Persia towards the south, and they were never subject to Darius' (3.98) This means that even though the Aryans, probably of Indo-European or Sumerian stock imposed themselves on the indigenous population of the Indus Valley on account of their superior valour they could not be conquered by the Persians.
<b>Migration</b>
The resemblance between the invading Aryans and the Dorins is an interesting point to note. Herodotus commenting on the latter concludes that they were of Egyptian origin (6.52) and that they were immigrants like Aeolians, Dryopes and Lemnians (8.73; 1.58). The Dorians, always being on the move 'migrated to Dryopis and finally settled in the Peloponnese where they got their present name of Dorians.' (1.58) Of their Pelasgian origin Herodotus has nothing much to say except that they are 'a non-Greek peoples' did not 'ever become very numerous or powerful'(1.58). However the Aryans who were known to have occupied parts of central Asia were traditionallly known to have originated from a place located to the north of ancient Scythia (Bongard - Levin, 1980: 24). Now scholars are of the opinion that the Aryans may have ventured to migrate to the subcontinent and elsewhere on account of severe weather conditions. Herodotus refers to a region which stretches to the vicinity of the Indus Valley: 'The whole region I have been describing has excessively hard winters; for eight months in the year the cold is intolerable; the ground is frozen iron-hard, so that to turn earth into mud requires not water but fire. The sea freezes over, and the whole of the Cimerian Bosphorus; and the Scythians, who live outside the trench which I mentioned previously, make war upon the ice, and drive waggons across it to the country of the Sindi. Even apart fromthe eight months' winter, the remaining four months are cold; and a further point of difference between the winters here and in all other parts of the world is that here, in Scythis, no rain worth mentioning falls during what is the usual season for them elsewhere, but only in the summer, when they are very violent; a winter thunderstorm is looked upon as a prodigy, as are earthquakes whether in summer or winter'. Â
      (4, 27-28)
That climactic conditions had been a common cause for immigration stretches to the time of the Sumerians. Changes in the physical geography or the weather patterns may have caused migration more frequent making way for civilizational adaptation and adoption (Crawford, 1991: 5; Adams, 1975, 181-182). If the Aryans migrated from central Asia to the subcontinent on account of climactic conditions and in search of greener habitation and if their original homeland can be perceived as somewhere in the neighbourhood of Scydia it would be plausible to discern that they could have been familiar with the Scythians and Scythian customs. Their resemblance with the invading Dorians was felt more dramatically in terms of the affinity of their social order which was apparently a transition from the previously known matrilinear to the patrilinear (Chattopadhyaya, 1975: 150-250).Â
That among the tribes living in central Asia and Afghanistan, which were referred to in Greek and Latin sources, were the following is notable:
'Panis (Greek: Parnoi)
Dasa (Iranian: Dahae and Greek: Daai)
Sindhu (Greek: Sindoi)
Parsu (Persians)
Pakhtas (Pakhtoons)
Drbhikas (Iranian: Debhikes)'
(Dhavalikar, 2007: 169)
Among other tribes which settled in the Indo-Iranian and Afghanistan boarder in the 2nd millenium B.C. some have been identified with the Hellenes. (op.cit): 168)
<b>
Flora and Fauna</b>
Herodotus refers to the Indian Ocean on several occasions as a channel of correspondence between the east and the west. (1.205; 2.8; 2.160; 4.42). He observes it as a single source of several water channels.
'The Caspian is a sea in itself and has no connection with the sea elsewhere unlike the Mediterranean which the Greeks use and what is called the Atlantic beyond the Pillars of Hercules and the Indian Ocean, all of which are in reality parts of a single sea.'Â (1.205)
But it is amazing to note that Herodotus knew nothing beyond the vast expanse of the sub continent. Referring to Asia in general he reaches the conclusion that it is a large portion of a land which so as follow:
'Between Persia and Phoenicia lies a very large area of country; and from Phoenicia the branch I am speaking of runs along the Mediterranean coast through Palestine-Syria to Egypt, where it ends. It contains three nations only. Such is Asia from Persia westward; eastward, beyond Media and the territories of the Saspires and Colchians, lies the Red Sea and, at the northern limit, the Caspian Sea and the river Araxes, which flows eastwards. Asia is inhabited as far as India; further east the country is uninhabited, and nobody knows what it is like. Such, then, are the shape and size of Asia.'     (4.42)
The proximity between Egypt and the Red Sea, by which the India 'Ocean was known, is notable:
'Egypt itself forms a narrow neck, only about 120 miles across from the Mediterranean to the Red Sea; but it soon broadens out and what is known as Libya covers a very large area.' (4.42)
This closeness is an implication of the dispersion of flora and fauna through the Indian Ocean may certainly have been possible. The Indian Ocean stretches from the Red Sea to south China, incorporating littoral regions of the Bay of Bengal, the gulf and the Mediterranean. The dialogue that had taken place between these littoral regions - historically, politically and culturally encapsulating the Near East, Africa, the Mediterranean comprising of Greek states and Roman provinces seems to have been a foundational factor contributing to the dispersion of flora and fauna, of which Herodotus is aware. Herodotus refers to Indian camels:
'Each man harnesses these camels abreast, a female, on which he rides, in the middle, and a male on each side in a leading-rein, and takes care that the female is one who has as recently as possible dropped her young. Their camels are as fast as horses, and much more powerful carriers. There is no need for me to describe the camel, for the Greeks are familiar with what it looks like; one thing, however, I will mention, which will be news to them: the camel in its hind legs has four thighs and four knees, and its genitals point backwards towards its tail.'   (3.98-106)
He then refers to the Indian horse:
'The most easterly country in the inhabited world is, as I said just now, India; and here both animals and birds are much bigger than elsewhere - if we except the Indian horse, which is inferior in size to the Median breed known as the Nemean.'Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â (3.106)
He rather enthusiastically idnetifies a species of ants encountered by the north Indians who go out digging for gold. It is fascinating to note their size:
'There is found in this desert a kind of ant of great size - bigger than a fix, though not so big as a dog. Some specimens, which were caught there, are kept at the palace of the Persian king. these creatures as they burrow underground throw up the sand in heaps, just as our own ants throw up the earth, and they are very like ours in shape.'      (3.98)
He also refers to crocodiles which could have been dispersed to the Greek mainland through the Indian Ocean:
'The greater part of Asia was discovered by Darius. He wanted to find out where the Indus joins the sea - the Indus is the only river other than the Nile where crocodiles are found - and for this purpose sent off on an expedition down the river a number of men whose word he could trust.'     (4.42-45)
Of flora Herodotus writes:
'There are trees growing wild which produce a kind of wool better than sheep's wool in beauty and quality, which the Indians use for making their clothes.' (3.106)
Reference is made to a particular plant in Heordotus which could be identified with the soma plant. Herodutus does not name the plant but refers to it as follows:
It would be feasible to develop a hypothesis that the juicy drink made with plants and herbs in several parts of Vedic India would have had some resemblance to this plant which Herodotus records:Â Â
'There is a plant which grows wild in their country, and has seeds in pod about the size of a millet seed, they gather this and boil and wet it, pod and all.'Â (3.98)
Four different variations of the plant soma is found in north India, Afghanistan, Iran, Hindukush, Chitral and Baluchistan (Kochbar, 1999: 109). The birthplace of this plant is now believed to be located in some region between Gandhara and Bactria, the present region of Kabul, Afghanistan (Bhangara, 2001: 58). An important drink offering during the Vedic period especially when the Aryan invaders of India had not yet separated from their kinsmen who invaded Persia, the term soma and haoma are identical. This implies the importance attached to libations in the religions of the Indians and the Persians (Jevons, 1988: 36). the religious value of this particular drink offering referred to as soma or haoma, but not so named in Herodotus though, as a thank offering receives an elevated degree of reverence in the religious duties and rituals of the Brahmans whose ritualistic offerings of soma or the libation itself was viewed as the god, Soma (Jevons; 1988; 37)
Herodotus observes the degree of prosperity of the land of the Indians, particularly considering the amount of tribute paid to Persia:
'The Indians, most populous nation in the known world paid the largest sum: 360 talents of gold-dust.'Â (3.92)
Reference to Indian gold is made also in 3.98 and 3.106. This clearly denotes the idea that Herodotus was aware of the wealth and resources of India.
<b>Religion</b>
The most fascinatingly influential element in Indian culture that had fused into the Greek context to which Herodotus refers to is its mystical tradition incorporating such ascetic practices like vegetarianism and non-violence. He records of a particular Indian tribe,
'Which behaves very differently: they will not take life in any form; they sow no seed and have no houses and live on a vegetable diet.'Â Â (3.98)
That this Indian sect resemble those who advocated non-violence to all living organisms, the Buddhists and Jains is already noted (Gareth, 1937: 3). The doctrines of a host of Greek religious teachers like Orpheus and philosophers like Pythagoras, Empedocles, Plato, the Cynics, the Sceptics, the Neoplatonics and the Neopythagoreans reflect the association with sacred esoteric knowledge which filtered into Greece via eastern sources but stemming originally from the Brahmanical doctrines in the Vedic and post-Vedic periods of the sub-continent. Orpheus the earliest known Greek humanitarian who prohibited any form of violence to animals insisted on the value of a vegetarian diet is known to have acquainted the Persian magi and Phrygio-Thracian prophets whose teachings were accepted by a select minority who favoured the practice. (Frogs, vs.1030-36 ;Hippolytus, vs. 951-52; Laws, 6. 782C)
Of Pythagoras and his acquaintance with the Hindu Brahmins Garbe writes as follows:
'It is not too much to assume that the curious Greek who was a contemporary of Buddha and it may be of Zoroaster too would have acquired a more or less exact knowledge of the East in that age of intellectual fermentation through the medium of Persia. It must be remembered in this connection that the Asiatic Greeks, at the time when Pythagoras still dwelt in his Ionian home were under the single sway of Cyrus the founder of the Persian Empire.' (Gareth, 1937: 4) That an amalgamation of cultures, Indian and Greek, did take place can be accepted on the grounds of this infiltration of ideas. The later Hellenistic philosophers who maintained contacts with the Indian Gymnosophists, a Greek expression for sages of India and a group of imaginary sages from Ethiopia, were more akin to this infiltration. Plutarch refers to Alexander's meeting with Gymnophists when he visited Punjab (Life of Alexander). Apollonius of Tyana also refers to these Gymnosophists (viii. 19; 20, vi. 10-12; 18.22)
With this infiltration of ideas another predominant topic that pervaded the entire Hindu religious tradition attracts attention and that is reincarnation or metempsychosis of which Herodotus notes in 2.123. But Herodotus does not emphatically mention India or the Indians as its precursors. the Indian ascetic tradition to which Herodotus refers very briefly in 3.98 has some parallels to the recent Hindu expressions related to virtue and an existence devoid of malice; ego; vice. Swami Vivekananda notes:
'A needle covered up with clay will not be attracted by a magnet but as soon as the clay is washed off it will be attracted.... God is the magnet and human soul is the needle.'
(Vivekananda, 1998: 278)
The Platonic conception of the soul's levels of realization and subsequent reunion with Beauty itself is observed in the Symposium, 211c. Further in the Republic Plato adds another level beyond Beauty to the transcendent One. This is expressed most succinctly in the description of the prisoner who had escaped from the dark cave:
'At first he would more easily discern the shadows and after that the likenesses or reflections in water of men and other things and later the things themselves, and from these he would go on to contemplation and appearances in the heavens and heaven itself more easily by night, looking at the light of the stars and the moon; than by day the sun and the sun's light. ... And so finally, I suppose, he would be able to look upon the sun .... in and by itself.'    (516 a-b)
This idea is further demonstrated by Iamblichus the Neoplatonist who admits that there is a possibility for the soul to link with the higher causal order:
'So then Intellect, as leader and king of the realm of Being and the art which creates the universe is present continuously and uniformly to the gods perfectly and self sufficiently free from any deficiency established in itself purely and in accordance with one sole activity while the soul participates in a partial and multiform intellect.'
(On the Mysteries, 1.7 (21.14-22.4)
The presence of Intellect itself to the gods suggests that a highest level of realization accomplished by the human soul represents the culmination and highest summit of insight.
To sum up then, Herodotus' reference to India and the Indians in his the Histories lends support to the cultural and civilizational amalgamation between the subcontinent and Greece at an early phase of antiquity, namely the 5th cen. B.C. Its attraction has been brought to the attention of both early and recent authors whose commentaries are invaluable for a proper understanding of its extent.
References
Herodotus, the Histories, tr. Aubvey de Selincourt, 1972, Clays Ltd., U.K
Plato, Republic, tr. Cornford F.M., 1954, Oxford.
Plato, Laws, tr. Saunders, T.J. 1970, Aylesbury, U.K
Euripides, Hippolytus, tr. Vellacott, p. 1977, Whitefriars, U.K.
Aristophanes, Frogs, tr. Barrett, D. 1980, Cox and Wyman Ltd., U.K.
Iamblichus, On the Mysteries, tr. Clarke, E.C. Dillon, J.M. and Hershbell, J.P. 2003, Atalanta, U.S.A.
Dhavalikar, M.K., 2007, The Aryans, Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers, India.
Garratt, G.T., 1937, The Legacy of India, Clarendon press, Oxford.
Chapeker, N.M., 1982, Ancient India and Iran, Ajantha Publications, Delhi.
Dandekar R.N., 1950, Vrtraba Indra, Annals of Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, India.
Crawford H., 1991, Sumer and the Sumerians, Cambridge University Press, U.K.
Tosi, M. 1984, Early Maritime Cultures of the Arabian Gulf and the Indian Ocean, London.
lamberg-karlovsky, C.C. 1973, Urban Interaction on the Iranian Plateau, Proceedings of the British Academy, U.K.
Mallory, J. 1989, In Search of Indo-Europeans: language, Archaeology and Myth, London.
Parpola, A. 1988, The Coming of the Aryans to Iran and India and the culture and the Ethnic Entity of the Dasas, International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics, India.
Finkel, I. 1985, Inscriptions from Tell. Brak., Iraq.
Hiebert, F.T., 1985, South Asia from a Central Asian Perspective, Indo Iranians in South Asia, India.
Renfrew, C. 1987, Archaeology and Language, London.
Alchin, f.r. 1985, the Interpretation of a Seal from Chanhu-daro and its significance for the religion of the Indus civilization, South Asian Archaeology, India.
Chatterji, S.K. 1968, Indo-Aryan and Hindi, Calcutta.
Bongard-Levin. G.M. 1980, Origin of the Aryans from Scythia to India, New Delhi.
Chattapodhaya, D.B. 1975, Lokayatha, Motilal Banarsidas, India.
Kochbar, R. 1999, On the Identity and Chronology of the RgVedic river Sarasvati, London.
Jevons, F.B., 1985, Comparative Religion, Orient Publications, Delhi.
Vivekananda, S. 1998, Jnana Yoga: Yoga of Knowledge, Calcutta.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Another paper:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>The Rise of the Sena Power in Nepal</b>
Basudevlal Das,M.A., Ph.D.
Lecturer,Deptt. Of History,
Thakur Ram Multiple Campus,
Birganj (Nepal).
<b>Abstract</b>
The Sena dynasty ruled in Bengal after the Pala dynasty upto 1205 AD. After the downfall of their rule in Bengal, their descendants proceeded westward. The neighbouring area Mithila was influenced by them, so a branch of the Sena family proceeded towards this and established their settlement in the land of present-day Nepal in about the half of the thirteenth century.
 Â
There are names of rulers of many dynasty with SENA suffix. The Sena dynasty of Bengal called themselves BRAHMA-KSHATRIYA and claimed to belong to the lunar race. They came from the Deccan and settled in Bengal. In Bengal, the last Sena ruler was Lakshmanasena, whose rule was ended by the attack of Khilji.
 Â
The Senas of Bengal expanded their territories at different times and in different ways towards the regions of Kamarupa, Gaya, Magadha, Mithila, Prayag, Kashi etc. These regions are now within the areas of Assam, Bihar and Uttar Pradesh in India and Nepal. The descendants of the Senas of Bengal afterwards established their kingdoms in Mandi, Suket, Keonthal and Kishtwar. These are the areas of present-day Himachal Pradesh and Jammu.
According to the VALLALACHARITA, the dominion of Vallalasena included Vanga,Varendra, Radha,Bagdi and Mithila and so Mithila was one of the five provinces of Vallala kingdom. Lakshmanasena, son of Vallalasena, worked for a long time in Mithila as KUMARAMATYA. This is the cause that the Lakshmana Samvat was prevailing in Mithila more than that in Bengal.
Traditions have preserved the names of various kings who succeeded Lakshmanasena. After the downfall of the Sena dynasty in Bengal, the descendants of Senas proceeded towards different provinces on which they and their ancestors had some influences. Though the historians differ in opinion that the Sena ruled over Mithila, nevertheless, they show the possibilities that some minor lines of Senas had something to do particularly with the province of Mithila.
Senas controlled a little portion of the area known as Morang, that is north-eastern Purnea extending upto the borders of Jalapaiguri in Bengal. In another evidence, the Bengal province of Mithila, included the whole of the country, called Morang. Birbandh is said to be the dividing line between the Karnatas of Mithila and the Senas of Bengal. Morang is at present the name of a district in Koshi Zone of Nepal. This is situated on the east side of the river Koshi.                     Â
There are so many ruins found in the Tarai region of Nepal. The Tarai region is the northern side of the land on which so many dynasties in different times in history ruled. The Sena kings of Nepal area used the word RUPANARAYANETYADI in their PRSHASTI (eulogy). Regarding the eulogy, it is said that this is related with the place Rupanagar ( Saptari district,Nepal). This place was the earliest capital-seat of the Senas in the Nepalese region.
In fact, a king named Mukundasena, who was a descendant of the Senas of Bengal, settled in the area of Rupanagar in the first half of the thirteenth century and expanding his rule towards the area of Magaras, established the seat of Makawanpur. The kingdom of Makawanpur was expanded towards east and west sides and so the rule of Sena dynasty covered, in course of time , the area of twentytwo districts of present-day Nepal. Finally, in eighteenth century, the rules of the Senas were ended by the new rising power Gorkhalis in Nepal.
<b>THE RISE OF THE SENA POWER IN NEPAL</b>
( A Paper to be presented in the International Conference on Indian History).
By:- Basudevlal Das,M.A., Ph.D.
Lecturer,Deptt. Of History,
Thakur Ram Multiple Campus,
Birganj (Nepal).
<b>1. Introduction:-</b>
The Sena dynasty ruled in Bengal upto 1205AD. They were the patron of Hinduism and adorned the title of Hindupati. After the downfall of their rule in Bengal, their descendants proceeded towards westward. The neighbouring area Mithila was also influenced by the Senas. So, a branch of the family proceeded towards this and established their settlement in the land of present-day Nepal in about the half of thirteenth century. The rule of the Senas ended in eighteenth century because of the new rising power of Gorkhalis.
<b>2. Background:-</b>
The very meaning of the term Sena is described in many dictionaries as having a lord, possessing a master or leader.1 In Sanskrit language this term is Shyena and in Prakrit language Sena. These both mean hawk, a bird of prey which is called in Hindi language Baja.2. One author writes about the origin of the term that this is derived from the the word Shrenika. The Shrenikas were nobles of the Cholas of South India. 3.
There are many rulers of several states at different periods, found having the title of Sena. Towards fourth and fifth centuries, the Vakataka dynasty of Madhya Pradesh (India) had an important place in the political and cultural life of India. The founder of this dynasty was Vindhyashakti. After him, his son Pravarasena ascended the throne, who was the only king of this dynasty to hold the title of emperor. 4. In the line of Pravarasena, further names are Sarvasena, Rudrasena, Prithvisena, Divakarasena, Damodarasena, Narendrasena, Devasena, Harisena etc.5. Likewise towards Ceylon, there are found some names as Mahasena, Mitrasena, Dhatusena, Kirtisena etc. 6.
The Shaka was an important tribe of Middle-Asia whose one branch used to live in Sistan(East Iran). From this place the Shaka arrived in southern Saurastra, Gujarat and Ujjain through the Indus river valley. These Shakas were eminent in the area named Erana of Sagar district (Madhya Pradesh, India). The moulds of the coin of the Shaka rulers are found in ample number from an excavation in Erana. They discover the names of four rulers in which two are with Sena title. It is considered that they are of the period before Samudragupta (335 to 375AD.).7.
An inscription from Aphsad (also called Jafarpur) of Gaya district (Bihar,India) mentions the name Adityasena of Gupta dynasty whose period was seventh century AD. 8.Â
Other inscriptions of Adityasena are found from Mandargiri (Bhagalpur district,Bihar) and Deva Varnaka(Shahabad district).9. These inscriptions discover his conquests upon Magadha, Tirhuta(Vaishali,Mithila) and upto Himalaya and crown him the epithet of Paramabhattaraka Maharajadhiraja.10. An inscription of Anshuvarma from Deupatan (Kathmandu valley,Nepal) mentions Rajaputra Shurasena. Here Shurasena seems a relative of Sarvadandanayaka Vikramasena. 11.
Towards the ninth to eleventh centuries, there were Jain teachers in Dharwar district of Mysore state. 12. They belonged to the Sena family (Senanvaya).13. It cannot be ascertained whether the Senas of Dharwar had any connection with those of Bengal. A family of kings with names ending in Sena are known to have ruled over the kingdom named Pithi. An inscription found at Janibigha, about six miles eastward from Bodh-Gaya, records the grant of village to the Vajrasana (i.e. Mahabodhi Temple) by king Acharya Jayasena, son of Buddhasena. 14.Â
Budhhasena must be identified with Acharya Buddhasena, Lord of Pithi, who is mentioned in an inscription found at Bodh-Gaya. The date of the Janibigha inscription is in the year 83 of Lakshmanasenasyatitarajye (from the end of Lakshmanasena's rule). This well known era Lakshmana Samvat started in 1119 AD was founded by king Lakshmanasena, to which Buddhasena and Jaysena belonged. 15.
The Sena family, that ruled in Bengal after the Palas, originally belonged to Karnata in South India.16. According to the Deopada (Rajashahi district,Bangladesh) Stone Inscription of Vijayasena (c.1096-1159AD), these are called Brahma-Kshatriya. 17. The term Brahma-Kshatriya, as one author describes, means Brahmana and Kshatriya. In ancient times the line of demarcation between the Brahmanas and the Kshatriyas, that is to say, between the learned and the warrior groups of castes, was not sharply defined.
It was often crossed, sometimes by change of occupation and the other times by intermarriage. Ordinarily the position of leading Brahmana at court was that of minister, but sometimes the Brahmana preferred to rule directly, and himself seized the throne. Thus in early times, the Shunga and Kanva royal families were Brahmanas. Thus during the transitional stage, while a Brahmana family was passing into the Kshatriya group of castes, it was often known by the composite designation of Brahma-Kshatriya. 18.
<b>3. The Senas of Bengal:-</b>
It has been suggested that in the confusion following the north-eastern expedition of Chalukya Vikramaditya of Dakshinatya Kalyani, 19. the Senas came from the Deccan and settled in Bengal . 20. But it is known from the records of the Palas that the kings of this dynasty, from Devapala downwards, appointed many foreigners as officers, among whom were also the Karnatas. It may be that a remote predecessor of the Senas of Bengal accepted service under the Palas, and then his successors gradually rose to power and settle in Bengal.21.
According to the Deopada Stone Inscription of Vijayasena, tlhe Senas claim to belong to the lunar race. In this Sena family(Senanvaye) Samantasena, the head garland (Kulashirodama) of the Brahma-Kshatriya community, was born who slaughtered the wicked robbers of the wealth of Karnatas( Karnata Lakshmi Luntakanama). 22. By the endeavours of Samantasena, his son Hemantasena became able to enjoy the real royal authority. 23.
Hemantasena seemed to have consolidated his position in Radha during the troublous times that followed the occupation of that country by the Kalachuri Karna. The epithet the skillful protector of kings given to Hemantasena in records of his son may have some reference to his giving shelters to Shurapala and Ramapala after their escape from the prision of Varendri. He was succeeded by his son Vijayasena in c.1095AD. 24.
Vijayasena (c.1095-1159AD) was the greatest king of the Sena dynasty in Bengal. It seems that when the disintegration of the Papa kingdom began after the death of Ramapala, Vijayasena made a bid for the conquest of the whole of Bengal. He strengthened his position by making an alliance with Anantavarman Chodaganga, king of Kalinga, who extended the boundary of his kingdom upto the Hooghly district. He led a naval expedition in the west along the course of the Ganga, probably against Govindachandra of the Gahadavala dynasty of
(3)
Kannauja. Most likely, it was this occasion that he invaded Mithila and inflicted defeat on its king Nanyadeva. Vallalasena(c.1159-1179AD) ascended the throne after his father Vijayasena. The Madhainagar (Pabna district,Bangladesh) Copper-plate Inscription of Lakshmanasena reveals that Vallalasena married with the Chalukya princess Ramadevi which is certainly a mark of his political honour. 25. In the book Vallalacharita by Anandabhatta Vanga, Varendra, Radha, Bagadi and Mithila are counted within his territory.
It is said that Lakshmanasena worked for a long time in Mithila as Kumaramatya in the reign of his father. This is the cause that the Lakshmana Samvat was prevailing in Mithila more than that in Bengal. Vallalasena showed more interest towards the cultural matters than the political activities. Traditionally his name is famous in the social history of Bengal as he introduced Kulinism and re-organized the caste system in Bengal. 26.
Lakshmanasena(c.1179-1205AD)was enthroned in his father Vallalasena\s life-time. But the scholars differ on the question of his reigning year. 27. If the Muslim evidence is accepted, it will be acceptable that Lakshmanasena ascended the throne at his age of about sixty. It is obvious that he accepted Vaishnava religion in spite of Shaiva which his father and grandfather had accepted. His inscriptions begin with Om Namonarayana while his predecessors' Om Namah Shivaya. 28.Â
Shridharadas was a minister of Lakshmanasena and had the title Mahamandalika. He was a Kayastha of Balaina Mula and established a temple with the image of Lakshminarayana at the village Anharatharhi (Madhubani district,Bihar). In the south and eastward from this village, there are four villages----Jarisen, Sainikadih, Saini and Laksena---- which is evident of the Sena rule over the area. 29. Lakshmanasena, possessing several specialities, lastly failed to control over his whole empire ultimately. Actually, the most prominent problem of the age was the terror of Muslim invasion.
<b>4. The successors of Lakshmanasena:- </b>
With the attack on Nadia in 1202AD by Muhammad ibn Bakhtyar Khilji, the rule of the Senas did not last in Bengal. After this, at least three or four years, Lakshmanasena himself ruled from Lakhanauti. After his death in 1205 AD, 30. his two sons Vishvarupasena and Keshavasena ruled in southern and eastern Bengal about 20-25 years from where at least three inscriptions are found. The Madanpada Copper-plate Inscription of Suryasena (c.1210|12-15 AD) and Vishvarupasena (c.1206-1222AD),which is found from Madanpada (Faridpur district, Bangladesh) is a record of grant to Vishvarupadevasharmana.Â
In this inscription, all the royal titles like Ashvapati, Gajapati, Narapati, the sun of the Sena family, the lamp of the Soma lineage, Parameshvara Paramabhattaraka Maharajadhiraja etc. are given to them. 31. According to the Muslim source the descendants of Lakshmanasena ruled over the land upto 1260AD. 32.
Traditions have preserved the names of various kings who cucceeded Lakshmanasena, but they posess very little historical value. This will be evident from the genealogy of the Sena kings preserved in Rajavali, one of the best text of this kind . 33. The names of the kings after Lakshmanasena as suzerains of Delhi are Kashavasena, Madhavasena, Shurasena, Bhimasena, Kartikasena, Harisena, Shatrughnasena, Narayanasena, Lakshmanasena II, Damodarasena, Sadasena, Jayasena etc. 34.
<b>5. The Expansion of the Senas:- </b>
The Senas of Bengal expanded their territories at different times and in different ways towards the regions of Kamarupa, Gaya, Magadha, Mithila, Prayaga, Kashi etc. These regions are now within the area of Assam,Bihar and Uttar Pradesh in India and in Nepal. On the basis of the facts obtained from Bengal and western Himalaya, it is established that Suryasena, a son of Vishvarupasena and grandson of Lakshmanasena, went towards Prayaga(Allahabad).
From there, his descendants proceeded towards western Himalaya and established the kingdoms in i) Suket (a sub-division in the Mandi district of Himachal Pradesh,India, at present it is called Sundarnagar); ii) Mandi ( at present a district of Himachal Pradesh); iii) Keonthal(at present Junga sub-division of the Simla district of Himachal Pradesh); and Kishtwar or Kashtwar(at present a sub-division in the Doda district of Jammu division of Jammu and Kashmir).
At the time of the Independence of India in 1947 AD, the name of the king of Suket was Lakshmanasena whose son Lalit Sena was elected as the Member of Lok Sabha of India. During the time of the Prime Ministership of Lal Bahadur Shastri, Lalit Sena was the Political Secretary to the Prime Minister. Thus the descendants of the Senas of Bengal had long rule in the areas of western Himalaya. It is believed that Suryasena proceeded towards Prayaga in about 1220 AD and the rule of the Sena dynasty remained in those regions till the Independence of India. 35.
<b>
6. The Senas on the Land of the present-day Nepal and the settlement of the  Seat of Rupanagar:- </b>
After the downfall of the Sena dynasty in Bengal, the descendants of the dynasty proceeded towards different provinces on which they and their ancestors had some influences. According to the Deopada Stone Inscription of Vijayasena, he defeated the kings of Gauda, Kamarupa and Kalinga and threatened Nanyadeva , the Karnata king of North-Bihar i.e. Mithila.36. Likewise, according to the Vallalacharita, the dominion of Vallalasena included Vanga, Varendra, Radha, Bagdi and Mithila and so Mithila was one of the five provinces of Vallala kingdom. Vallalasena was adorned with the title of Nihsankhasankara. Pargana Nishankhapur Kurha in Madhipura sub-division (Bihar) is still reminiscient of that and it was the Sena administrative centre. 37.
The descendant of Lakshmanasena, who proceeded towards Allahabad, was Suryasena. After his death, his son Rupasena marched towards the north-west and reached the area on the bank of Satadru river in Siwalik hill area of the foot-hills of Western Himalaya. The place was present-day Ropar (this place is at present a district head-quarter of Punjab near Chandigarh). He defeated there some Muslim Sardars and constructed a fort. He made his capital there and named the place Rupanagar after his own name. But he faced many battles with Muslims and at last he was killed.
After his death, his three sons went towards westwards in Himaoayan area and established their own dominions de eating the local chiefs. The first son of Rupasena was Virasena who established the kingdom of Suket in the valley of Satadru river, the second Girisena captured Keonthal of Simla district and the third Hamirasena founded the kingdom of Kishtwar in the valley of Chandrabhaga river of Jammu region. After some generations, a branch of Suket ruler established a new kingdom in Mandi. 38.
Though the historians differ in the opinion that the Senas ruled over Mithila, nevertheless, they show the possibilities that some minor lines of Senas had something to do particularly with the province of Mithila. 39. The Sanokhar Inscription of Vallalasena of 1166AD establishes the fact that he extended his authority upto Sanokhar region of Bhagalpur on the south of the Ganga. Sanokhar might have been the eastern boundary of the Sena power in Bihar. Possibly the Senas controlled a little portion of the area known as Moranga, that is, north-eastern Purnea extending upto the borders of Jalapaiguri in Bengal.40.
In another evidence, the Bengal province of Mithila, included the whole of the country, called Moranga. Birbandh is said to be the dividing line between the Karnatas of Mithila and the Senas of Bengal. 41. Moranga is at present the name of a district in Koshi Zone of Nepal. This if situated on the east side of the river Koshi. In the west side of the Koshi, there is Saptari district of Sagaramatha Zone of Nepal.
There are so many ruins found in the Tarai region of Nepal. The Tarai region is the northern side of the land on which so many dynasties in different times in history ruled. Among these are the ancient Magadha, Videha, Koshala, Anga, Gauda(Banga) etc. It can be supposed that an ancient route was passed through or near these regions of Tarai from east to west. This is historically asserted that an attack on Simaraungarh, the capital of Karnata king Harisinghadeva, was made by Gyasuddin Tughalaque when he was returning from Bengal. There is a ruin in Moranga, north-east side from Biratnagar,Nepal. It is called the fort of King Dhanapala or Dharmapala. It can be said that this is the fort of the Pala kings of Bengal who were before the Senas. 42.
Likewise, another evidence of Hindu settlement in the region of Janakpurdham,Nepal is the mound in the village Duhabi. A partial excavation of this mound by villagers in the late 1960's yielded a circular brick foundation, several vehicles of Tantrika symbols, an inscription Ma and a statue of Ganesh. Their style suggests the possible cultural influence of the Sena dynasty which ruled over Bengal, Bihar and Orissa from the eleventh century. The Ma inscription which was found in the mound means mother, a common epithet of the goddess Durga. 43.
The Sena rulers of Suket and Mandi (now in Himachal Pradesh,India) claim that they are the descendants of the Sena dynasty of Bengal. After the death of king Mantarasena of early thirtheenth century, there were two claimants to the Gaddi. 44. By this, we know that in the early thirteenth century, the seat of the Sena kings was called Gaddi. There is a temple of Gadi-Ganesh in Vijayapur(Sunsari district,Nepal) which is said to be the place of the enthronement of the Sena kings of Vijayapur. A stone which is worshipped as the god Ganesh is still there. Chatara is a place situated on the bank of Koshi river (Sunsari district, Nepal) which is called also Chatara-Gaddi. These days, a monastery and Gaddi of Auliya Baba are present there. But that very monastery and the seat of Auliya Baba were granted by the Sena rulers of Makawanpur.
On the other hand, the Chatara of present-day is not the ancient one. It is transferred from its previous place, which was south-westward across Koshi river. There is a hearsay that first-of-all the Sena rulers founded their seats at this place and by their seat or Gaddi, the name of this place became Chatara Gaddi. This has much possibility because the ancient Chatara and the place named Rupanagar are situated together. 45 There is another hearsay that an issueless king of Sena dynasty came to the place where a saint used to live. The king met the saint and after some discussions, the saint blessed him with the blessings of four sons, among which the king had to present his first son to the saint. The king acted accordingly and rest three sons became the rulers of the areas. In this way, it is said that Chatara Gaddi was a big monastery conducted by a ruler of Sena dynasty. 46.
The Sena kings of Nepal area used the word Rupanarayanetyadi in their Prashasti (eulogy). It is not obvious whether the word Rupanarayana was the name of any ancestor of the dynasty or the name of their original place or the word was merely their adjective. 47. A king named Rupasena is mentioned in the line of successors of the Senas of Bengal who proceeded towards western Himalayan region after 1220 AD. 48. On the other hand, a river named Rupanarayana is between Midnapore and Howrah districts of West-Bengal,India. 49.
In ancient times, this river was in Tamralipti district, which is known as Tamluk these days and is in Midnapore district, thirtythree miles south-west from Calcutta, on the bank of river Rupanarayana. 50. This place was the main and important place of the Senas of Bengal. Regarding the eulogy, it is also said that this is related with the place Rupanagar (Saptari district,Nepal). This place was the earliest capital-seat of the Senas of Nepalese region. The above mentioned Chatara Gaddi was situated near this place previously, no doubt. 51.
Rupanagar is situated in Saptari district(Nepal) on the East-West-Highway. The bricks of extra-ordinary size and terracottas are seen in this area. Besides these, the images of Narayana, Vishnu, Uma-Maheshvara and Nrityaganesha are found which are considered to be of the thirteenth century. 52. On the other hand, ruins of the royal palace (Shisha Mahal),the stable (Ghoradaura), the pond, the court (Kachahari) etc. are also found.Â
So, it is quite obvious that the Senas first settled in this area. 53. Other remains of the palaces and temples are found scattered in many places in Saptari district like Rajabiraj, Shambhunath, Manaraja, Garhiya etc. 54. There are many ruins also in the nearest hills. These ruins-like matters are worshipped somewhere as Devi and somewhere as Mahadeva.55. From some other sources also it is indicated that the Senas settled first in the Saptari area of Nepal and afterward established their independent principalities. 56.
<b>7. Foundation of the Kingdom of Makawanpur:-</b>
In fact, a king named Mukundasena, who was a descendant of the Senas of Bengal, settled in the area of Rupanagar(Saptari district, Nepal) in the first half of the thirteenth century and expanding his rule towards the area of Magaras, established the seat of Makawanpur. 57. The kingdom of Makawanpur was expanded towards Palpa and afterward its expansion went towards the regions of Rajapur, Tanahun, Lama, Pyuthan, Madariya, Darchha, Risinga, Vinayakapur, Gulmi etc.
This is evident by the fact that the term Rupanarayanetyadi is used in the eulogies of all the kings of the Sena dynasty of the above mentioned regions,58 while the rulers of Gulmi, Argha, Isma etc. called themselves of the lineage of Kala Makawani. 59. In this way, the kingdom of Makawanpur was established as a vast kingdom of the Senas in the areas of twentytwo distritcts of the present-day Nepal.
The territory was expanded towards Palpa in the period of Rudrasena in about the last decade of fifteenth century. 60. Afterward, the kingdom was divided more than once, by which several Sena rulers started their own independent rules. Finally, in eighteenth century, the rules of the Senas were ended by the new rising power Gorkhalis in Nepal. Thus, the Sena dynasty has contributed very much in the political and cultural history of Nepal. 61.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Anjani, can you kindly upload the paper by Dr. Gunatilake?
|
