http://satyameva-jayate.org/2007/07/19/lies-and-half-truths/
"A quote from Mrs. Coomi Kapoor, summarising the guidelines prepared by the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) in 1982. Mrs Kapoor is quoted as saying:
“History and Language textbooks for schools all over India will soon be revised radically. In collaboration with various state governments the Ministry of Education has begun a phased programme to weed out undesirable textbooks and remove matter which is prejudicial to national integration and unity and which does not promote social cohesion.""
http://www.indiamystica.com/Awake%20India%20---%202/why%20isnt%20the%20media%20accountable.html
"The issue here is the sheer irresponsibility of the media. Whether it is Godhra, Tehelka, petrol pump allocations or the Ansal Plaza killing of terrorists, our media seems to believe it will attract its audience only if it dresses to kill, or, as some newspapers have patented, it undresses models in colour. That it is not accountable to anyone in the country except to its proprietors' profit and loss account abets that belief. No wonder the ICE World section of Business Standard dated January 29, 2003, says The Times of India charges fees to PR agencies for publishing their releases. Are we then headed for editorials charged at so many rupees per column centimetre? Our media demands foolproof accountability from every institution in our land, including the judiciary. Why then doesn't it demand the same from itself?"
Showing posts with label History. Show all posts
Showing posts with label History. Show all posts
Friday, June 5, 2009
Re-visiting the Taj Mahal
While there has been a lot of discussion on whether the Taj is actually a Hindu temple, many people have ignored and dismissed anyone who contended such a line of thought.
Recently I have found some interesting information which supports the view that the Taj might have been a Hindu building before it was taken over my Shah Jahan.
http://satyameva-jayate.org/2005/11/07/the-biggest-whitewash-in-indian-history/
Note the comment where the author of the book reviewed puts in his thoughts.
Some experpts from that comment,
"Badshahnama: Persian text of this document was published by Asiatic Society of Bengal in 1867.It was compiled by two Muslim Maulavis. During the British Raj some British officers translated from Persian into English, Babur-nama, Humayun-nama, Akbar-nama and Ain-e-Akabari and Tazuk-e-Jehangiri. Why did their curiosity stop there?
So, why has Badshahnama not been translated into English for 141 years. Even Pakistanis have not dared to do this. How can they? Badshahnama clearly states that Shahjahan grabbed Raja Mansingh’s palace for burial of his wife."
"Unexplained structures and underground chambers: Please make this simpler. There are two huge basements under the Main terrace. These cannot be seen from the garden, but can be seen from the riverside. They were noted by the English painters Thomas and William Daniells in 1789 when they visited Taj Mahal.These are seen in the book of Sleeman in 1844, In Vincent Smith’s book of 1911. And yet NOT ONE historian has questioned the purpose of these? And why are they still blocked today?"
"Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) confesses
We understand that the ASI are under political pressure to keep quiet. But even then they had made a confession. In 1982 they published a booklet called Taj Museum.
On page 4 they say – “ The site selected for the burial was an extremely pleasant and lofty land situated to the south of the city on which till then stood the mansion (Manzil) of Raja Mansingh which was at that time in possession of the latter’s grandson Raja Jaisingh.”
Common sense should tell us that what is being paraded as Taj Mahal today is nothing but Raja Mansingh’s Palace being misused as a tomb of Mumtaz.
Nothing can be clearer.
And who are the authors of this booklet? Dr Zia-uddin Ahmad Desai and H K Kaul
That my friends, is in short, the biggest whitewash in Indian History.
If you want to know more please read my book “Taj Mahal : Simple Analysis of a Great deception”.
My E mail I.D. is v.godbole3@ntlworld.com"
Stephen Knapp in his website gives a copy of the page in the Badshahnama where the Taj is mentioned,
http://www.stephen-knapp.com/badshahnama.htm
"This is supposed to have been written by the emperor's chronicler, the Mullah Abdul Hamid Lahori. It describes the site of the Taj Mahal as being full of majestic and lush gardens just south of the city (Agra). It goes on to say that the palace of Raja Mansingh, which was owned by his grandson Raja Jaisingh, was selected as the place for the burial of the queen Mumtaz. This means, of course, that Shah Jahan never built the Taj Mahal but only acquired it from the previous owner, who was Jaisingh. "
Finally I found a video of a lecture given by renowned archeologist Marvin Mills on the topic, where he concludes that there is enough evidence to question the present belief that Shah jahan built the Taj Mahal and demands that thorough research be done to ascertain the truth.
http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=-3379388167850403569&ei=B3spSsTkD4rcrgKM_4SmCg&q=Marvin+Mills+&hl=en
Recently I have found some interesting information which supports the view that the Taj might have been a Hindu building before it was taken over my Shah Jahan.
http://satyameva-jayate.org/2005/11/07/the-biggest-whitewash-in-indian-history/
Note the comment where the author of the book reviewed puts in his thoughts.
Some experpts from that comment,
"Badshahnama: Persian text of this document was published by Asiatic Society of Bengal in 1867.It was compiled by two Muslim Maulavis. During the British Raj some British officers translated from Persian into English, Babur-nama, Humayun-nama, Akbar-nama and Ain-e-Akabari and Tazuk-e-Jehangiri. Why did their curiosity stop there?
So, why has Badshahnama not been translated into English for 141 years. Even Pakistanis have not dared to do this. How can they? Badshahnama clearly states that Shahjahan grabbed Raja Mansingh’s palace for burial of his wife."
"Unexplained structures and underground chambers: Please make this simpler. There are two huge basements under the Main terrace. These cannot be seen from the garden, but can be seen from the riverside. They were noted by the English painters Thomas and William Daniells in 1789 when they visited Taj Mahal.These are seen in the book of Sleeman in 1844, In Vincent Smith’s book of 1911. And yet NOT ONE historian has questioned the purpose of these? And why are they still blocked today?"
"Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) confesses
We understand that the ASI are under political pressure to keep quiet. But even then they had made a confession. In 1982 they published a booklet called Taj Museum.
On page 4 they say – “ The site selected for the burial was an extremely pleasant and lofty land situated to the south of the city on which till then stood the mansion (Manzil) of Raja Mansingh which was at that time in possession of the latter’s grandson Raja Jaisingh.”
Common sense should tell us that what is being paraded as Taj Mahal today is nothing but Raja Mansingh’s Palace being misused as a tomb of Mumtaz.
Nothing can be clearer.
And who are the authors of this booklet? Dr Zia-uddin Ahmad Desai and H K Kaul
That my friends, is in short, the biggest whitewash in Indian History.
If you want to know more please read my book “Taj Mahal : Simple Analysis of a Great deception”.
My E mail I.D. is v.godbole3@ntlworld.com"
Stephen Knapp in his website gives a copy of the page in the Badshahnama where the Taj is mentioned,
http://www.stephen-knapp.com/badshahnama.htm
"This is supposed to have been written by the emperor's chronicler, the Mullah Abdul Hamid Lahori. It describes the site of the Taj Mahal as being full of majestic and lush gardens just south of the city (Agra). It goes on to say that the palace of Raja Mansingh, which was owned by his grandson Raja Jaisingh, was selected as the place for the burial of the queen Mumtaz. This means, of course, that Shah Jahan never built the Taj Mahal but only acquired it from the previous owner, who was Jaisingh. "
Finally I found a video of a lecture given by renowned archeologist Marvin Mills on the topic, where he concludes that there is enough evidence to question the present belief that Shah jahan built the Taj Mahal and demands that thorough research be done to ascertain the truth.
http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=-3379388167850403569&ei=B3spSsTkD4rcrgKM_4SmCg&q=Marvin+Mills+&hl=en
Friday, April 3, 2009
Indian Historians
Another brilliant article by Arun Shourie from the hvk.org website. This one is a reply to the communist poseurs who claim to be honest sincere historians. He gives details of how the communists in Bengal have distorted history in school textbooks to paint a nice picture of Islam and communism!!
Title: OBJECTIVE WHITEWASH FOR OBJECTIVE HISTORY!
Author: by Arun Shourie
"This is an old charge which keeps surfacing now and then," wrote one of those "eminent historians", K. N. Panikkar, in an vituperative response to an article of mine -- the charge that close to two crores had been spent on the "Towards Freedom" project of the Indian Council of Historical Project, and little had been achieved. "About a year back Times of India carried a front page story on this. The historians had then clarified through a public statement published in several newspapers, that they have not drawn any money from the ICHR and that they worked for five years purely in an honorary capacity. When he [that is, me] gets the information from the ministry, if he does, that the editors have not taken any money, I would normally expect Shourie to tender a public apology. But given the intellectual honesty and cultural level reflected in his article, I do not think it would be forthcoming. The alternative of suing for defamation the likes of Shourie is below one's dignity. But I do expect at least the ministry to make a public statement on the factual position."
Strong stuff, and definitive, one would think. It turns out that on 17 July, 1998, in answer to a question tabled in the Rajya Sabha, the Ministry stated that only one part of the project has been completed and published since the original volume of Dr. P. N. Chopra. This is the volume -- in three parts -- by Dr. Partha Sarthi Gupta covering 1943-44. In answer to another question, the Ministry has reported that "After publication of the Volume he was paid an honorarium of Rs. 25,000/- in September, 1997."
Dr. Partha Sarthi Gupta, in other words, is the one editor who has completed the work which he had undertaken. For that he has been paid Rs. 25,000. The others have not completed the work they had undertaken, they have therefore not been paid the Rs. 25,000 which are to be paid to them only when their volumes are completed and published. That is how they go about proclaiming themselves to be social workers -- we have been working in an honorary capacity, we have not taken a penny !
And as bits and pieces about the ICHR at last start trickling out, we learn that the "Towards Freedom" project isn't the only one on which large amounts have been spent and which has not been completed. There is an "Economic History of India Project." Rs. NINETEEN LAKHS AND FIFTY FIVE THOUSAND have been spent on it. Nothing has been published as a result. Though, the Ministry told the Rajya Sabha that "according to the information furnished by the ICHR," two volumes of the project -- on Railways and Agriculture -- are "ready for the press".
The Ministry also told the Rajya Sabha that "Professor Bipin Chandra was sanctioned a sum of Rs. 75,000/- during 1987-88 for the assignment entitled 'A History of the Indian National Congress'. A sum of Rs. 57,500/- [FIFTY SEVEN THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED] has been released to him till 23.6.1989. The remaining balance of Rs. 17,500/- is yet to be released because a formal manuscript in this regard is yet to be received." In a word, spare readers this social-worker stance -- "doing all this in a strictly honorary capacity". It is as if Bipin Chandra were to go about saying, "See, I have not even taken the Rs. 17,500/- which the ICHR still owes me." And do not miss that effort from the ICHR to help to the extent possible -- "The remaining balance of Rs. 17,500/- is yet to be released because a formal manuscript in this regard is yet to be received." Does that mean that some "informal" manuscript has been received, or that no manuscript has been received ?
As newspapers and magazines such as Outlook had done, Panikkar had concocted his conspiracy theory on the charge that the BJP Government had changed the word "Rational" into "National", and that it had suppressed three of the five objectives of the ICHR by changing the Memorandum of Association of the ICHR. I had reproduced relevant paragraphs from the Resolutions to show that the same wording had continued for at least twenty years. I had given the numbers and dates of the Resolutions. I had also reported that I had requested the Secretary of the Ministry to help ascertain the year since which the same wording had continued. And what was the response of this "eminent" historian who, as he said, writes signed articles in publications of the Communist Party "because I believe in the ideals it stands for" ? "Even if Shourie's contention is true (unlike Shourie who is a BJP MP, a resident of Delhi elected from UP, I have no means to ascertain from the Ministry)...."
That is a much favoured stance : when caught peddling a lie, insinuate that the other fellow is privileged ! And that as you are from the working masses, you cannot ascertain whether the facts he has stated are true. Therefore, what you stated must stand as fact -- Q.E.D.
Exactly the same dodge was used a day or so later by another of these progressives. Manoj Raghuvanshi had invited K. M. Shrimali and me to discuss on Zee Television's Aap ki Adalat the charge that history was being rewritten in communal colours. Raghuvanshi read out what Outlook had reported -- that the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education had issued instructions in 1989 that "Muslim rule should never attract any criticism. Destruction of temples by Muslim rulers and invaders should not be mentioned."
Raghuvanshi asked Shrimali, whether this did not amount to distortion ? True, that was a painful period of our history, Raghuvanshi said, but should it be erased from our history books ? Would that be objective, rational history? Shrimali's response was the well-practised script : firstly, he did not know that such an instruction was ever issued; if it was issued, he said, he was against it; but one must see what the context was in which the instruction had been issued....
Concerned teachers in West Bengal have been so kind as to send me the circular relating to textbooks for class IX. Dated 28 April, 1989, it is issued by the West Bengal Secondary Board. It is in Bengali, and carries the number "Syl/89/1".
"All the West Bengal Government recognised secondary school Headmasters are being informed," it begins, "that in History textbooks recommended by this Board for Class IX the following amendments to the chapter on the medieval period have been decided after due discussions and review by experts." "
"The authors and publishers of Class IX History textbooks," it continues, "are being requested to incorporate the amendments if books published by them have these aushuddho [impurities, errors] in all subsequent editions, and paste a corrigendum in books which have already been published. A copy of the book with the corrigendum should be deposited with the Syllabus Office (74, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Road, Calcutta -- 16)." Signed,
"....Chattopadhyaya, Secretary."
The accompanying pages contain two columns : aushuddho -- impurity, or error -- and shuddho.
One has just to glance through the changes to see the objective the progressives are trying to achieve through their "objective", "rational" approach to the writing of history. Here are some of the changes.
Book : Bharat Katha, prepared by the Burdwan Education Society, Teachers Enterprise, published by Sukhomoy Das....
Page 140 : Aushuddho -- "In Sindhudesh the Arabs did not describe Hindus as Kafir. They had banned cow-slaughter." Shuddho -- "Delete, 'They had banned cow-slaughter'."
Page 141 : Aushuddho -- "Fourthly, using force to destroy Hindu temples was also an expression of aggression. Fifthly, forcibly marrying Hindu women and converting them to Islam before marriage was another way to propagate the fundamentalism of the ulema." Shuddho : though the column reproduces the sentences only from "Fourthly....", the Board directs that the entire matter from "Secondly.... to ulema" be deleted.
Page 141 : Aushuddho -- The logical, philosophical, materialist Mutazilla disappeared. On the one hand, the fundamentalist thinking based on the Quran and the Hadis...." Shuddho -- "Delete, 'On the one hand, the fundamentalist thinking based on the Quran and the Hadis'...."
Book : Bharatvarsher Itihash, by Dr. Narendranath Bhattacharya, published by Chakravarty and Son....
Page 89 : Aushuddho -- "Sultan Mahmud used force for widespread murder, loot, destruction and conversion." Shuddho -- "There was widespread loot and destruction by Mahmud." That is, no reference to killing, no reference to forcible conversions.
Page 89 : Aushuddho -- "He looted valuables worth 2 crore dirham from the Somnath temple and used the Shivling as a step leading up to the masjid in Ghazni." Shuddho -- "Delete 'and used the Shivling as a step leading up to the masjid in Ghazni.'"
Page 112 : Aushuddho -- "Hindu-Muslim relations of the medieval ages is a very sensitive issue. The non-believers had to embrace Islam or death." Shuddho -- All matter on pages 112-13 to be deleted.
Page 113 : Aushuddho -- "According to Islamic law non-Muslims will have to choose between death and Islam. Only the Hanafis allow non-Muslims to pay jaziya in exchange for their lives." Shuddho -- Rewrite this as follows : "By paying jaziya to Allauddin Khilji, Hindus could lead normal lives." Moreover, all the subsequent sentences "Qazi....", "Taimur's arrival in India...." to be deleted.
Page 113 : Aushuddho -- "Mahmud was a believer in the rule of Islam whose core was 'Either Islam or death'. Shuddho -- Delete.
Book : Bharuter Itihash, by Shobhankar Chattopadhyaya, published by Narmada Publishers.
Page 181 : Aushuddho -- "To prevent Hindu women >from being seen by Muslims, they were directed to remain indoors." Shuddho -- Delete.
Book : Itihasher Kahini, by Nalini Bhushan Dasgupta, published by B. B. Kumar.
Page 132 : Aushuddho -- According to Todd [the famous chronicler of Rajasthan annals] the purpose behind Allauddin's Chittor expedition was to secure Rana Rattan Singh's beautiful wife, Padmini." Shuddho -- Delete.
Page 154 : Aushuddho -- "As dictated by Islam, there were three options for non-Muslims : get yourself converted to Islam; pay jaziya; accept death. In an Islamic State non-Muslims had to accept one of these three options." Shuddho -- Delete.
Page 161 : Aushuddho -- "The early Sultans were eager to expand the sway of Islam by forcibly converting Hindus into Islam." Shuddho -- Delete.
Book : Bharuter Itihash, by P. Maiti, Sreedhar Prakashini.
Page 117 : Aushuddho -- "There is an account that Allauddin attacked the capital of Mewar, Chittorgarh, to get Padmini, the beautiful wife of Rana Rattan Singh." Shuddho -- Delete.
Page 139 : Ashuddho -- "There was a sense of aristocratic superiority in the purdah system. That is why upper-class Hindus adopted this system from upper-class Muslims. Another opinion has it that purdah came into practice to save Hindu women from Muslims. Most probably, purdah came into vogue because of both factors." Shuddho -- delete.
The most extensive deletions are ordered in regard to the chapter on "Aurangezeb's policy on religion". Every allusion to what he actually did to the Hindus, to their temples, to the very leitmotif of his rule -- to spread the sway of Islam -- are directed to be excised from the book. He is to be presented as one who had an aversion -- an ordinary sort of aversion, almost a secular one -- to music and dancing, to the presence of prostitutes in the Court, and that it is these things he banished. The only allusion to his having done anything in regard to Islam which is allowed to remain is that "By distancing himself from Akbar's policy of religious tolerance and policy of equal treatment, Aurangzebe caused damage to Mughal rule."
Book : Swadesho Shobhyota, by Dr. P. K. Basu and S. B. Ghatak, Abhinav Prakashan.
Page 126 : Ashuddho -- "Some people believe that Allauddin's Mewar expedition was to get hold of Padmini, the wife of Rana Rattan Singh." Shuddho -- Delete.
Page 145 : Ashuddho -- "Apart from this, because Islam used extreme inhuman means to establish itself in India, this became an obstacle for the coming together of Indian and Islamic cultures." Shuddho -- Delete.
Book : Bharat Katha, by G. Bhattacharya, Bulbul Prakashan.
Page 40 : Ashuddho -- "Muslims used to take recourse to torture and inhuman means to force their religious beliefs and practices on Indians." Shuddho -- Delete.
Page 41 : Ashuddho -- "The liberal, humane elements in Islam held out hope for oppressed Hindus." Shuddho -- The entire paragraph beginning with "the caste system among Hindus.... was attacked" is to be deleted. Instead write, "There was no place for casteism in Islam. Understandably, the influence of Islam created an awakening among Hindus against caste discrimination. Lower caste oppressed Hindus embraced Islam."
Page 77 : Ashuddho -- "His main task was to oppress non-believers, especially Hindus." Shuddho -- This and the preceding sentence to be deleted.
Book : Bharuter Itihash, by A. C. Roy, published by Prantik.
Page 102 : Ashuddho -- "There is an account that Allauddin attacked Chittor to get the beautiful wife of Rana Rattan Singh, Padmini." Shuddho -- Delete.
Page 164 : Ashuddho -- "It was his commitment to Islam which made him a fundamentalist." Shuddho -- Delete.
Book : Bharut Kahini, by G. C. Rowchoudhury, published by A. K. Sarkar and Co.
Page 130 : Ashuddho -- "That is why he adopted the policy of converting Hindus to Islam -- so as to increase the number of Muslims. Those Hindus who refused to discard their religion were indiscriminately massacred by him or his generals." Shuddho -- Delete.
In a word, no forcible conversions, no massacres, no destruction of temples. Just that Hinduism had created an exploitative, casteist society. Islam was egalitarian. Hence the oppressed Hindus embraced Islam !
Muslim historians of those times are in raptures at the heap of Kafirs who have been dispatched to hell. Muslim historians are forever lavishing praise on the ruler for the temples he has destroyed, for the hundreds of thousands he has got to see the light of Islam. Law books like The Hedaya prescribe exactly the options to which these little textbooks alluded. All whitewashed away.
Objective whitewash for objective history. And today if anyone seeks to restore truth to these textbooks, the scream, "Communal rewriting of history."
But there isn't just whitewash of Islam. For after Islam came another great emancipatory ideology -- Marxism-Leninism.
The teachers furnish extracts from the textbook for Class V.
".... in Russia, China, Vietnam, Cuba and in other East European countries, the workers and peasants are ruling the country after capturing power, whereas in U.S.A., England, France and Germany the owners of mills and factories are ruling the country."
".... after the Revolution in Russia the first exploitation-free society was established."
".... Islam and Christianity are the only religions which treated man with honour and equality...."
Thus, not just whitewash, there is hogwash too.
Title: OBJECTIVE WHITEWASH FOR OBJECTIVE HISTORY!
Author: by Arun Shourie
"This is an old charge which keeps surfacing now and then," wrote one of those "eminent historians", K. N. Panikkar, in an vituperative response to an article of mine -- the charge that close to two crores had been spent on the "Towards Freedom" project of the Indian Council of Historical Project, and little had been achieved. "About a year back Times of India carried a front page story on this. The historians had then clarified through a public statement published in several newspapers, that they have not drawn any money from the ICHR and that they worked for five years purely in an honorary capacity. When he [that is, me] gets the information from the ministry, if he does, that the editors have not taken any money, I would normally expect Shourie to tender a public apology. But given the intellectual honesty and cultural level reflected in his article, I do not think it would be forthcoming. The alternative of suing for defamation the likes of Shourie is below one's dignity. But I do expect at least the ministry to make a public statement on the factual position."
Strong stuff, and definitive, one would think. It turns out that on 17 July, 1998, in answer to a question tabled in the Rajya Sabha, the Ministry stated that only one part of the project has been completed and published since the original volume of Dr. P. N. Chopra. This is the volume -- in three parts -- by Dr. Partha Sarthi Gupta covering 1943-44. In answer to another question, the Ministry has reported that "After publication of the Volume he was paid an honorarium of Rs. 25,000/- in September, 1997."
Dr. Partha Sarthi Gupta, in other words, is the one editor who has completed the work which he had undertaken. For that he has been paid Rs. 25,000. The others have not completed the work they had undertaken, they have therefore not been paid the Rs. 25,000 which are to be paid to them only when their volumes are completed and published. That is how they go about proclaiming themselves to be social workers -- we have been working in an honorary capacity, we have not taken a penny !
And as bits and pieces about the ICHR at last start trickling out, we learn that the "Towards Freedom" project isn't the only one on which large amounts have been spent and which has not been completed. There is an "Economic History of India Project." Rs. NINETEEN LAKHS AND FIFTY FIVE THOUSAND have been spent on it. Nothing has been published as a result. Though, the Ministry told the Rajya Sabha that "according to the information furnished by the ICHR," two volumes of the project -- on Railways and Agriculture -- are "ready for the press".
The Ministry also told the Rajya Sabha that "Professor Bipin Chandra was sanctioned a sum of Rs. 75,000/- during 1987-88 for the assignment entitled 'A History of the Indian National Congress'. A sum of Rs. 57,500/- [FIFTY SEVEN THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED] has been released to him till 23.6.1989. The remaining balance of Rs. 17,500/- is yet to be released because a formal manuscript in this regard is yet to be received." In a word, spare readers this social-worker stance -- "doing all this in a strictly honorary capacity". It is as if Bipin Chandra were to go about saying, "See, I have not even taken the Rs. 17,500/- which the ICHR still owes me." And do not miss that effort from the ICHR to help to the extent possible -- "The remaining balance of Rs. 17,500/- is yet to be released because a formal manuscript in this regard is yet to be received." Does that mean that some "informal" manuscript has been received, or that no manuscript has been received ?
As newspapers and magazines such as Outlook had done, Panikkar had concocted his conspiracy theory on the charge that the BJP Government had changed the word "Rational" into "National", and that it had suppressed three of the five objectives of the ICHR by changing the Memorandum of Association of the ICHR. I had reproduced relevant paragraphs from the Resolutions to show that the same wording had continued for at least twenty years. I had given the numbers and dates of the Resolutions. I had also reported that I had requested the Secretary of the Ministry to help ascertain the year since which the same wording had continued. And what was the response of this "eminent" historian who, as he said, writes signed articles in publications of the Communist Party "because I believe in the ideals it stands for" ? "Even if Shourie's contention is true (unlike Shourie who is a BJP MP, a resident of Delhi elected from UP, I have no means to ascertain from the Ministry)...."
That is a much favoured stance : when caught peddling a lie, insinuate that the other fellow is privileged ! And that as you are from the working masses, you cannot ascertain whether the facts he has stated are true. Therefore, what you stated must stand as fact -- Q.E.D.
Exactly the same dodge was used a day or so later by another of these progressives. Manoj Raghuvanshi had invited K. M. Shrimali and me to discuss on Zee Television's Aap ki Adalat the charge that history was being rewritten in communal colours. Raghuvanshi read out what Outlook had reported -- that the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education had issued instructions in 1989 that "Muslim rule should never attract any criticism. Destruction of temples by Muslim rulers and invaders should not be mentioned."
Raghuvanshi asked Shrimali, whether this did not amount to distortion ? True, that was a painful period of our history, Raghuvanshi said, but should it be erased from our history books ? Would that be objective, rational history? Shrimali's response was the well-practised script : firstly, he did not know that such an instruction was ever issued; if it was issued, he said, he was against it; but one must see what the context was in which the instruction had been issued....
Concerned teachers in West Bengal have been so kind as to send me the circular relating to textbooks for class IX. Dated 28 April, 1989, it is issued by the West Bengal Secondary Board. It is in Bengali, and carries the number "Syl/89/1".
"All the West Bengal Government recognised secondary school Headmasters are being informed," it begins, "that in History textbooks recommended by this Board for Class IX the following amendments to the chapter on the medieval period have been decided after due discussions and review by experts." "
"The authors and publishers of Class IX History textbooks," it continues, "are being requested to incorporate the amendments if books published by them have these aushuddho [impurities, errors] in all subsequent editions, and paste a corrigendum in books which have already been published. A copy of the book with the corrigendum should be deposited with the Syllabus Office (74, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Road, Calcutta -- 16)." Signed,
"....Chattopadhyaya, Secretary."
The accompanying pages contain two columns : aushuddho -- impurity, or error -- and shuddho.
One has just to glance through the changes to see the objective the progressives are trying to achieve through their "objective", "rational" approach to the writing of history. Here are some of the changes.
Book : Bharat Katha, prepared by the Burdwan Education Society, Teachers Enterprise, published by Sukhomoy Das....
Page 140 : Aushuddho -- "In Sindhudesh the Arabs did not describe Hindus as Kafir. They had banned cow-slaughter." Shuddho -- "Delete, 'They had banned cow-slaughter'."
Page 141 : Aushuddho -- "Fourthly, using force to destroy Hindu temples was also an expression of aggression. Fifthly, forcibly marrying Hindu women and converting them to Islam before marriage was another way to propagate the fundamentalism of the ulema." Shuddho : though the column reproduces the sentences only from "Fourthly....", the Board directs that the entire matter from "Secondly.... to ulema" be deleted.
Page 141 : Aushuddho -- The logical, philosophical, materialist Mutazilla disappeared. On the one hand, the fundamentalist thinking based on the Quran and the Hadis...." Shuddho -- "Delete, 'On the one hand, the fundamentalist thinking based on the Quran and the Hadis'...."
Book : Bharatvarsher Itihash, by Dr. Narendranath Bhattacharya, published by Chakravarty and Son....
Page 89 : Aushuddho -- "Sultan Mahmud used force for widespread murder, loot, destruction and conversion." Shuddho -- "There was widespread loot and destruction by Mahmud." That is, no reference to killing, no reference to forcible conversions.
Page 89 : Aushuddho -- "He looted valuables worth 2 crore dirham from the Somnath temple and used the Shivling as a step leading up to the masjid in Ghazni." Shuddho -- "Delete 'and used the Shivling as a step leading up to the masjid in Ghazni.'"
Page 112 : Aushuddho -- "Hindu-Muslim relations of the medieval ages is a very sensitive issue. The non-believers had to embrace Islam or death." Shuddho -- All matter on pages 112-13 to be deleted.
Page 113 : Aushuddho -- "According to Islamic law non-Muslims will have to choose between death and Islam. Only the Hanafis allow non-Muslims to pay jaziya in exchange for their lives." Shuddho -- Rewrite this as follows : "By paying jaziya to Allauddin Khilji, Hindus could lead normal lives." Moreover, all the subsequent sentences "Qazi....", "Taimur's arrival in India...." to be deleted.
Page 113 : Aushuddho -- "Mahmud was a believer in the rule of Islam whose core was 'Either Islam or death'. Shuddho -- Delete.
Book : Bharuter Itihash, by Shobhankar Chattopadhyaya, published by Narmada Publishers.
Page 181 : Aushuddho -- "To prevent Hindu women >from being seen by Muslims, they were directed to remain indoors." Shuddho -- Delete.
Book : Itihasher Kahini, by Nalini Bhushan Dasgupta, published by B. B. Kumar.
Page 132 : Aushuddho -- According to Todd [the famous chronicler of Rajasthan annals] the purpose behind Allauddin's Chittor expedition was to secure Rana Rattan Singh's beautiful wife, Padmini." Shuddho -- Delete.
Page 154 : Aushuddho -- "As dictated by Islam, there were three options for non-Muslims : get yourself converted to Islam; pay jaziya; accept death. In an Islamic State non-Muslims had to accept one of these three options." Shuddho -- Delete.
Page 161 : Aushuddho -- "The early Sultans were eager to expand the sway of Islam by forcibly converting Hindus into Islam." Shuddho -- Delete.
Book : Bharuter Itihash, by P. Maiti, Sreedhar Prakashini.
Page 117 : Aushuddho -- "There is an account that Allauddin attacked the capital of Mewar, Chittorgarh, to get Padmini, the beautiful wife of Rana Rattan Singh." Shuddho -- Delete.
Page 139 : Ashuddho -- "There was a sense of aristocratic superiority in the purdah system. That is why upper-class Hindus adopted this system from upper-class Muslims. Another opinion has it that purdah came into practice to save Hindu women from Muslims. Most probably, purdah came into vogue because of both factors." Shuddho -- delete.
The most extensive deletions are ordered in regard to the chapter on "Aurangezeb's policy on religion". Every allusion to what he actually did to the Hindus, to their temples, to the very leitmotif of his rule -- to spread the sway of Islam -- are directed to be excised from the book. He is to be presented as one who had an aversion -- an ordinary sort of aversion, almost a secular one -- to music and dancing, to the presence of prostitutes in the Court, and that it is these things he banished. The only allusion to his having done anything in regard to Islam which is allowed to remain is that "By distancing himself from Akbar's policy of religious tolerance and policy of equal treatment, Aurangzebe caused damage to Mughal rule."
Book : Swadesho Shobhyota, by Dr. P. K. Basu and S. B. Ghatak, Abhinav Prakashan.
Page 126 : Ashuddho -- "Some people believe that Allauddin's Mewar expedition was to get hold of Padmini, the wife of Rana Rattan Singh." Shuddho -- Delete.
Page 145 : Ashuddho -- "Apart from this, because Islam used extreme inhuman means to establish itself in India, this became an obstacle for the coming together of Indian and Islamic cultures." Shuddho -- Delete.
Book : Bharat Katha, by G. Bhattacharya, Bulbul Prakashan.
Page 40 : Ashuddho -- "Muslims used to take recourse to torture and inhuman means to force their religious beliefs and practices on Indians." Shuddho -- Delete.
Page 41 : Ashuddho -- "The liberal, humane elements in Islam held out hope for oppressed Hindus." Shuddho -- The entire paragraph beginning with "the caste system among Hindus.... was attacked" is to be deleted. Instead write, "There was no place for casteism in Islam. Understandably, the influence of Islam created an awakening among Hindus against caste discrimination. Lower caste oppressed Hindus embraced Islam."
Page 77 : Ashuddho -- "His main task was to oppress non-believers, especially Hindus." Shuddho -- This and the preceding sentence to be deleted.
Book : Bharuter Itihash, by A. C. Roy, published by Prantik.
Page 102 : Ashuddho -- "There is an account that Allauddin attacked Chittor to get the beautiful wife of Rana Rattan Singh, Padmini." Shuddho -- Delete.
Page 164 : Ashuddho -- "It was his commitment to Islam which made him a fundamentalist." Shuddho -- Delete.
Book : Bharut Kahini, by G. C. Rowchoudhury, published by A. K. Sarkar and Co.
Page 130 : Ashuddho -- "That is why he adopted the policy of converting Hindus to Islam -- so as to increase the number of Muslims. Those Hindus who refused to discard their religion were indiscriminately massacred by him or his generals." Shuddho -- Delete.
In a word, no forcible conversions, no massacres, no destruction of temples. Just that Hinduism had created an exploitative, casteist society. Islam was egalitarian. Hence the oppressed Hindus embraced Islam !
Muslim historians of those times are in raptures at the heap of Kafirs who have been dispatched to hell. Muslim historians are forever lavishing praise on the ruler for the temples he has destroyed, for the hundreds of thousands he has got to see the light of Islam. Law books like The Hedaya prescribe exactly the options to which these little textbooks alluded. All whitewashed away.
Objective whitewash for objective history. And today if anyone seeks to restore truth to these textbooks, the scream, "Communal rewriting of history."
But there isn't just whitewash of Islam. For after Islam came another great emancipatory ideology -- Marxism-Leninism.
The teachers furnish extracts from the textbook for Class V.
".... in Russia, China, Vietnam, Cuba and in other East European countries, the workers and peasants are ruling the country after capturing power, whereas in U.S.A., England, France and Germany the owners of mills and factories are ruling the country."
".... after the Revolution in Russia the first exploitation-free society was established."
".... Islam and Christianity are the only religions which treated man with honour and equality...."
Thus, not just whitewash, there is hogwash too.
Saturday, March 28, 2009
The last Pagan European Emperor
I discovered that the last pagan emperor of Europe who tried his best to remove the murdering Xtianity from the empire and re-introduce paganism was Emperor Flavius Claudius Julianus.
It can be seen that even then theXtians indulged in activities such as temple burning and mass murders of Pagans.
"He is sometimes termed Julian the Apostate, because of his rejection of Christianity in favour of Neo-Platonic paganism; Edward Gibbon wrote:
The triumph of the party which he deserted and opposed has fixed a stain of infamy on the name of Julian; and the unsuccessful apostate has been overwhelmed with a torrent of pious invectives, of which the signal was given by the sonorous trumpet of Gregory Nazianzen."
Interesting notes on his opinion on Religion:
"The 4th century was a time of religious frenzy when people were obsessed with the divine and relations with the gods had to be kept in constant order. For Julian, as it had been for the Tetrachs, Christianity was a threat because by their non-compliance they placed the welfare of the state at risk and sought to abandon the faith that had been the founding of classical civilization. Julian considered Christianity a disease (ep. 41 & 58, 229d) and he referred to the members of the faith as Galileans to deny their creed the claim of being universal. Among his objections was that Christianity did not promote virtue by allowing its adherents simple absolution for sins, even capital crimes (336a-b). Indeed, Constantine had waited until his deathbed before being baptized to receive forgiveness for his numerous crimes. The veneration of martyrs he saw as a morbid preoccupation with corpses.
Julian had been at pains to keep his pagan faith a secret, even after he was proclaimed emperor he continued to observe Christian ceremonies. On the march from Naissos to Constantinople he openly performed a sacrifice which hr recounted to Maximus (ep. 8; Lib. 18.114) writing that the gods had commanded him to restore their worship to its former purity. However, Julian had no intention of merely restoring pagan religion but raising a challenge against the dominance of Christianity. Had Julian enjoyed a reign as long as his cousin or uncle paganism might have been established as a power to be reckoned with, a far greater threat to Christianity.
Among the reforms of early 362, Julian issued one or more decrees aimed at restoring the ancient faith. Property that had been confiscated from pagan temples was restored and public worship of all religious ceremonies, pagan as well as Christian, were allowed. Subsidies that the imperial government had paid to Christian clergy were withdrawn and shifted to pagan clergy and for the rebuilding of temples. Julian also recalled Christian heretics from exile hopeful that their presence would cause the Christian church to fragment.
Unlike Christianity, pagan religion did not perform missionary work to seek converts. Julian sought to remedy this by creating pagan monasteries and establish a systematic theology. Salutius, his military advisor in Gaul, wrote a catechism, almost certainly with Julian's participation, called On the Gods and the Cosmos that sought to establish religious unity, at least among the educated. Pagan faith, however, had never been exclusive in its worship; cities and small communities had charge of their own rites and festivals. Pagan monotheism, in Christian terms, did not exist and was the recognition of a supreme god, as Helios was for Julian (138c, 151a-d), with the other gods as his subordinates.
One of Julian's goals was to establish a pagan clergy with the emperor at the apex as pontifex maximus. Regional high priests, ideally schooled in Neoplatonic philosophy, would be given charge over major areas and were entitled to appoint priests. Julian intended to write a guide for the priesthood but it seems he did not accomplish this task, however, many of his principles appear in his letters. His priests were charged to perform charitable works based on brotherhood "because every man, whether he will or no, is akin to every other man" (291d). Priests were exhorted to be generous to the poor, even to criminals, in the belief that philanthropy does not hinder justice (290d-291a). In a letter to Arascius, the high priest of Galatia, (ep. 22) Julian is particularly clear in what expected from his priests. One fifth of the corn and wine that was provided to Arasacius must be set aside for the poor. The pagan priesthood in each city were to found orphanages and hostels that were open to all in need, not just pagans. Julian was critical of the Christians for keeping their charity to themselves (ep. 22.430d). These ideas may appear to be Christian in origin but the Stoics had maintained a long and deeply felt tradition of philanthropy based on brotherhood.
Pagan priests usually performed their duties part-time; Julian endowed pagan temples to allow a priest to worship full-time. Days and times were fixed for sacrifices and priests were urged to set an example for the community by abstaining from frivolous company and habits, and cultivating the reading of edifying books. They were to preach regularly in the temple and to avoid going to the theater. Julian defined the function of the images of the gods to his priests as symbolic representations only that allowed one to worship, but not being the god himself (293a-b, 294b-c). On the other hand, Julian associated the cult of the emperor with the traditional gods as their sole representative on earth, upholding the notion of the divinity of the emperor, something his model, Marcus Aurelius, would have disapproved of.
Always impatient, Julian had expected paganism to make quicker gains against Christianity (ep. 22.429c). in the summer of 362, while residing in Antioch, he issued a rescript concerning the character of the person city councils ought to appoint as teachers. But the law was so vague it needed further explanation by an additional edict (ep. 36). This law, in no uncertain terms, forbade Christians to teach classical literature for the reason that Christians should not teach what they do not believe. The literature of Greek antiquity was cherished by society; its study was intended to form a student's character and the ability to express oneself in a classical frame of reference. Anyone who wished to pursue a career in public affairs or gain social distinction needed such an education. For believers of Hellenism, writings such as those of Homer and Hesiod, were divinely inspired by the gods, so it was contrary to allow Christians to teach this sacred literature.
The law forced Christian teachers to abandon their professions, although Julian made an exception with Prohairesios, who he knew, but who refused the dispensation. Christian students, of course, could attend the lectures of pagan teachers, giving no choice to a youth who wished to pursue a career in law or the civil service. The edit was well-timed as Julian understood that Christians had not established an educational system of their own. Perhaps the scope of the law went further than teachers of literature to include other professions as the edict was considered inhumane by pagans (Amm. 22.10.7), as well as Christian. Whatever the full implications of this edit were for Julian's contemporaries, for modern historians, the passage of time has blurred its impact.
Julian's idea that Homer and Plato could not be appreciated unless they were thought of as sacred was eventually accepted by the Christian church. Homer, Plato and Aristotle, the main influences of intellectual life for the eastern empire, were given a place as saints in the kingdom of Christ."
There are many parallels to what happened in Europe at that time and what is happening in India right now.
It can be seen that even then theXtians indulged in activities such as temple burning and mass murders of Pagans.
"He is sometimes termed Julian the Apostate, because of his rejection of Christianity in favour of Neo-Platonic paganism; Edward Gibbon wrote:
The triumph of the party which he deserted and opposed has fixed a stain of infamy on the name of Julian; and the unsuccessful apostate has been overwhelmed with a torrent of pious invectives, of which the signal was given by the sonorous trumpet of Gregory Nazianzen."
Interesting notes on his opinion on Religion:
"The 4th century was a time of religious frenzy when people were obsessed with the divine and relations with the gods had to be kept in constant order. For Julian, as it had been for the Tetrachs, Christianity was a threat because by their non-compliance they placed the welfare of the state at risk and sought to abandon the faith that had been the founding of classical civilization. Julian considered Christianity a disease (ep. 41 & 58, 229d) and he referred to the members of the faith as Galileans to deny their creed the claim of being universal. Among his objections was that Christianity did not promote virtue by allowing its adherents simple absolution for sins, even capital crimes (336a-b). Indeed, Constantine had waited until his deathbed before being baptized to receive forgiveness for his numerous crimes. The veneration of martyrs he saw as a morbid preoccupation with corpses.
Julian had been at pains to keep his pagan faith a secret, even after he was proclaimed emperor he continued to observe Christian ceremonies. On the march from Naissos to Constantinople he openly performed a sacrifice which hr recounted to Maximus (ep. 8; Lib. 18.114) writing that the gods had commanded him to restore their worship to its former purity. However, Julian had no intention of merely restoring pagan religion but raising a challenge against the dominance of Christianity. Had Julian enjoyed a reign as long as his cousin or uncle paganism might have been established as a power to be reckoned with, a far greater threat to Christianity.
Among the reforms of early 362, Julian issued one or more decrees aimed at restoring the ancient faith. Property that had been confiscated from pagan temples was restored and public worship of all religious ceremonies, pagan as well as Christian, were allowed. Subsidies that the imperial government had paid to Christian clergy were withdrawn and shifted to pagan clergy and for the rebuilding of temples. Julian also recalled Christian heretics from exile hopeful that their presence would cause the Christian church to fragment.
Unlike Christianity, pagan religion did not perform missionary work to seek converts. Julian sought to remedy this by creating pagan monasteries and establish a systematic theology. Salutius, his military advisor in Gaul, wrote a catechism, almost certainly with Julian's participation, called On the Gods and the Cosmos that sought to establish religious unity, at least among the educated. Pagan faith, however, had never been exclusive in its worship; cities and small communities had charge of their own rites and festivals. Pagan monotheism, in Christian terms, did not exist and was the recognition of a supreme god, as Helios was for Julian (138c, 151a-d), with the other gods as his subordinates.
One of Julian's goals was to establish a pagan clergy with the emperor at the apex as pontifex maximus. Regional high priests, ideally schooled in Neoplatonic philosophy, would be given charge over major areas and were entitled to appoint priests. Julian intended to write a guide for the priesthood but it seems he did not accomplish this task, however, many of his principles appear in his letters. His priests were charged to perform charitable works based on brotherhood "because every man, whether he will or no, is akin to every other man" (291d). Priests were exhorted to be generous to the poor, even to criminals, in the belief that philanthropy does not hinder justice (290d-291a). In a letter to Arascius, the high priest of Galatia, (ep. 22) Julian is particularly clear in what expected from his priests. One fifth of the corn and wine that was provided to Arasacius must be set aside for the poor. The pagan priesthood in each city were to found orphanages and hostels that were open to all in need, not just pagans. Julian was critical of the Christians for keeping their charity to themselves (ep. 22.430d). These ideas may appear to be Christian in origin but the Stoics had maintained a long and deeply felt tradition of philanthropy based on brotherhood.
Pagan priests usually performed their duties part-time; Julian endowed pagan temples to allow a priest to worship full-time. Days and times were fixed for sacrifices and priests were urged to set an example for the community by abstaining from frivolous company and habits, and cultivating the reading of edifying books. They were to preach regularly in the temple and to avoid going to the theater. Julian defined the function of the images of the gods to his priests as symbolic representations only that allowed one to worship, but not being the god himself (293a-b, 294b-c). On the other hand, Julian associated the cult of the emperor with the traditional gods as their sole representative on earth, upholding the notion of the divinity of the emperor, something his model, Marcus Aurelius, would have disapproved of.
Always impatient, Julian had expected paganism to make quicker gains against Christianity (ep. 22.429c). in the summer of 362, while residing in Antioch, he issued a rescript concerning the character of the person city councils ought to appoint as teachers. But the law was so vague it needed further explanation by an additional edict (ep. 36). This law, in no uncertain terms, forbade Christians to teach classical literature for the reason that Christians should not teach what they do not believe. The literature of Greek antiquity was cherished by society; its study was intended to form a student's character and the ability to express oneself in a classical frame of reference. Anyone who wished to pursue a career in public affairs or gain social distinction needed such an education. For believers of Hellenism, writings such as those of Homer and Hesiod, were divinely inspired by the gods, so it was contrary to allow Christians to teach this sacred literature.
The law forced Christian teachers to abandon their professions, although Julian made an exception with Prohairesios, who he knew, but who refused the dispensation. Christian students, of course, could attend the lectures of pagan teachers, giving no choice to a youth who wished to pursue a career in law or the civil service. The edit was well-timed as Julian understood that Christians had not established an educational system of their own. Perhaps the scope of the law went further than teachers of literature to include other professions as the edict was considered inhumane by pagans (Amm. 22.10.7), as well as Christian. Whatever the full implications of this edit were for Julian's contemporaries, for modern historians, the passage of time has blurred its impact.
Julian's idea that Homer and Plato could not be appreciated unless they were thought of as sacred was eventually accepted by the Christian church. Homer, Plato and Aristotle, the main influences of intellectual life for the eastern empire, were given a place as saints in the kingdom of Christ."
There are many parallels to what happened in Europe at that time and what is happening in India right now.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Conspiracy to destroy India
The Congress seems to be leaving no stone unturned to destroy India and make it a slave country. It is a fact that our Prime minister Man Mohan Singh's daughter was involved in making a history textbook for Delhi University which had extremely derogatory statement against the Ramayana!
Here is a very good article on exactly how the congress and the communists are falsifying Indian history to paint a picture of their liking and in the process are leading India into destruction. (I personally disagree with the author's opinion on national language. The only language which really deserves to be the national language is Sanskrit)
The muck we teach our children
A conspiracy to distort history and de-nationalise students
By Himanshu Shekhar Jha
Education at the school stage in India today suffers from a number of ills which are difficult to detail within the compass of a few words. Each evil needs to be addressed separately and elaborately. One of such evil is the anti-Hindu, and therefore, the anti-national educational policy of the Government.
Though the word “National” has been used both in the National Curriculum Framework (NCF) 2005 and in the National Policy on Education (1986), if anything makes its absence conspicuous in the various textbooks published by the NCERT, it is love for the motherland and pride in her glorious past.
That the NCERT text books are anti-national is abundantly clear from the introductory note for teachers given in the book of social science called Social and Political Life II prescribed for class VII. The aforesaid note says:
SPL (Social and Political Life) functions by the pedagogic principle that the children learn best through an experimental understanding of concepts. This poses a contradiction when the effort is to write a “National” textbook, because a national text can neither sufficiently represent all the various aspects of the various locals, nor fix the sociological background of the child for whom the book is intended.”
If by the word “Locals” used above is meant children belonging to the minority community, that cannot be the ground for framing an anti-national educational policy which admittedly the NCF 2005 and NPOE 1986 diligently seek to do. If India is a democratic republic as the preamble to the Constitution solemnly declares, the interests of the children belonging to the majority community cannot be justifiably jeopardised on any ground whatsoever.
The anti-national features of the NCERT textbooks particularly those related to history and social studies are too glaring to be overlooked. Take, for example, a textbook in history for class VII. This book begins with the photograph of a Muslim cartographer from Arab and ends with that of another Muslim holding a scroll in his hand. The photograph of the Arab cartographer is carried again in much larger form covering almost half of a page. On the very next page appear pictures of Persian and Arabic handwritings and different varieties of their style called nastaliq and shikaste. While these photographs and pictures may have some significance for a book of cartography and art, they are not at all relevant for a book of history whether of India or any other country in the world. In any event, these totally irrelevant photographs and pictures are not going to give anyone knowledge about medieval India which the writer of a book of history is expected to impart.
The NCERT’s above textbooks of history abounds in the pictures of Muslim rulers such as Babar, Humayun, Akbar, Aurangzeb and others, but has no space to carry the portraits of Maharana Pratap, Chatrapati Shivaji and other illustrious historical personages of our sacred Motherland. What inspiration will our children, whether Hindus or Muslim, draw from the portrait of cruel Nadir Shah who had invaded our country, looted gold coins and jewels worth crores of rupees and perpetrated unspeakable atrocities on the people?
In the chapter on “The Mughal Empire” it has been written “Quite in contrast to their predecessors, the Mughals created an empire and accomplished what has hitherto seemed possible for only short periods of time. From the latter half of the sixteenth century they expanded their kingdom from Agra and Delhi until in the seventeenth century they controlled nearly all the subcontinent. They imposed structures of administration and ideas of governance that outlasted their rule leaving a political legacy that succeeding rulers of the subcontinent could not ignore.”
Does the aforementioned political legacy not include forcible conversion of millions of Hindus, destruction of their places of worship in large number and other abominable acts of cruelty and callousness? Does such political legacy deserve to be retained in future as the NCERT historians seems to suggest?
In the subsequent chapter while answering “Why were temples destroyed” an extremely vague and misleading statement has been given in the following words—“Because kings built temples to demonstrate their devotion to God and their power and wealth, it is not surprising that when they attacked one another’s kingdoms, they often targeted these buildings.”
Thus according to NCERT historians the temples were destroyed not by Muslim rulers, but by the Hindu kings themselves when they waged war with one another. Can any historical account be more untrue and anti-national?
The utter falsity of the above statement is evident from the illustration given in the text itself. The account of the Buddhist monk and chronicler Dhammakiti given in the textbook does not show that any Hindu temple had ever been destroyed by a Hindu king. It discloses that only valuables including the statue of Lord Buddha made entirely of gold and other golden images kept in various monasteries had been removed.
Even the subsequent citation related to Chola Kingdom does not lead to the inference that the temples were destroyed by the Hindu kings themselves.
The NCERT is not only all set to oppose nationalism as is evident from the introductory note to teachers already referred to in the foregoing paragraphs, but is also brazenly against patriotism. In the textbook Political Theory prescribed for class XI we come across an excerpt in which Rabindranath Tagore has wrongly and disparagingly spoken against patriotism. The poet might have his own reasons for expressing such views but the NCERT was not under any compulsion to include such anti-national views in a textbook which is prescribed for immature school going children who might certainly be misled by them.
In order to bring its anti-national and anti-patriotic educational policy in limelight the NCERT has super-scribed the caption Tagore’s critique of nationalism above the poet’s impugned quote which can be seen at page 108 of the book Political Theory for Class XI.
Tagore says, “Patriotism cannot be our final spiritual shelter; my refuge is humanity. I will not buy glass for the price of diamonds and I will never allow patriotism to triumph over humanity as long as I am live.”
Is there any hostility between patriotism and humanity? Should children at schools be taught not to be loyal to their Motherland by following the lofty ideals of patriotism? Should they not be told that true patriotism can never be opposed to humanity?
A man who cannot love and serve his own mother can never love and serve mankind. There is no conflict between patriotism and humanity and the question of the one triumphing over the other does not arise as the words “I will never allow patriotism to triumph over humanity” used by Tagore suggest. It is unethical to compare patriotism with ordinary glass and humanity with costly diamonds. Both are equally important.
In the textbook of history for class XII one of the most important and also most neglected subjects—national language has been discussed under the sub-heading “The Language of the Nation”.
Instead of teaching the students to have love and respect for Hindi which alone is fit to be the national language on India the NCERT had given the following excerpt in its book on Social Science from Gandhi's thought under the sub-heading “What should the qualities of a national language be?” which, inter alia, reads as follows:
“To confine oneself to Hindi or Urdu would be a crime against intelligence and patriotism.” (Harijan Sevak, October 12, 1947). How love for one’s own national language which is spoken by the majority of the people including both Hindus and Muslims, be a crime against patriotism?
There is no language in the world like Hindustani. How could a non-existent language become the national language of India?
There is no doubt that NCERT’s textbooks are creating misleading and anti-national feelings among students. A book of history particularly that which is taught in schools must embody moral lessons for the building of the character of students. This can not be done by the NCERT or any other institution run by the Government if its policy is anti-national.
Here is a very good article on exactly how the congress and the communists are falsifying Indian history to paint a picture of their liking and in the process are leading India into destruction. (I personally disagree with the author's opinion on national language. The only language which really deserves to be the national language is Sanskrit)
The muck we teach our children
A conspiracy to distort history and de-nationalise students
By Himanshu Shekhar Jha
Education at the school stage in India today suffers from a number of ills which are difficult to detail within the compass of a few words. Each evil needs to be addressed separately and elaborately. One of such evil is the anti-Hindu, and therefore, the anti-national educational policy of the Government.
Though the word “National” has been used both in the National Curriculum Framework (NCF) 2005 and in the National Policy on Education (1986), if anything makes its absence conspicuous in the various textbooks published by the NCERT, it is love for the motherland and pride in her glorious past.
That the NCERT text books are anti-national is abundantly clear from the introductory note for teachers given in the book of social science called Social and Political Life II prescribed for class VII. The aforesaid note says:
SPL (Social and Political Life) functions by the pedagogic principle that the children learn best through an experimental understanding of concepts. This poses a contradiction when the effort is to write a “National” textbook, because a national text can neither sufficiently represent all the various aspects of the various locals, nor fix the sociological background of the child for whom the book is intended.”
If by the word “Locals” used above is meant children belonging to the minority community, that cannot be the ground for framing an anti-national educational policy which admittedly the NCF 2005 and NPOE 1986 diligently seek to do. If India is a democratic republic as the preamble to the Constitution solemnly declares, the interests of the children belonging to the majority community cannot be justifiably jeopardised on any ground whatsoever.
The anti-national features of the NCERT textbooks particularly those related to history and social studies are too glaring to be overlooked. Take, for example, a textbook in history for class VII. This book begins with the photograph of a Muslim cartographer from Arab and ends with that of another Muslim holding a scroll in his hand. The photograph of the Arab cartographer is carried again in much larger form covering almost half of a page. On the very next page appear pictures of Persian and Arabic handwritings and different varieties of their style called nastaliq and shikaste. While these photographs and pictures may have some significance for a book of cartography and art, they are not at all relevant for a book of history whether of India or any other country in the world. In any event, these totally irrelevant photographs and pictures are not going to give anyone knowledge about medieval India which the writer of a book of history is expected to impart.
The NCERT’s above textbooks of history abounds in the pictures of Muslim rulers such as Babar, Humayun, Akbar, Aurangzeb and others, but has no space to carry the portraits of Maharana Pratap, Chatrapati Shivaji and other illustrious historical personages of our sacred Motherland. What inspiration will our children, whether Hindus or Muslim, draw from the portrait of cruel Nadir Shah who had invaded our country, looted gold coins and jewels worth crores of rupees and perpetrated unspeakable atrocities on the people?
In the chapter on “The Mughal Empire” it has been written “Quite in contrast to their predecessors, the Mughals created an empire and accomplished what has hitherto seemed possible for only short periods of time. From the latter half of the sixteenth century they expanded their kingdom from Agra and Delhi until in the seventeenth century they controlled nearly all the subcontinent. They imposed structures of administration and ideas of governance that outlasted their rule leaving a political legacy that succeeding rulers of the subcontinent could not ignore.”
Does the aforementioned political legacy not include forcible conversion of millions of Hindus, destruction of their places of worship in large number and other abominable acts of cruelty and callousness? Does such political legacy deserve to be retained in future as the NCERT historians seems to suggest?
In the subsequent chapter while answering “Why were temples destroyed” an extremely vague and misleading statement has been given in the following words—“Because kings built temples to demonstrate their devotion to God and their power and wealth, it is not surprising that when they attacked one another’s kingdoms, they often targeted these buildings.”
Thus according to NCERT historians the temples were destroyed not by Muslim rulers, but by the Hindu kings themselves when they waged war with one another. Can any historical account be more untrue and anti-national?
The utter falsity of the above statement is evident from the illustration given in the text itself. The account of the Buddhist monk and chronicler Dhammakiti given in the textbook does not show that any Hindu temple had ever been destroyed by a Hindu king. It discloses that only valuables including the statue of Lord Buddha made entirely of gold and other golden images kept in various monasteries had been removed.
Even the subsequent citation related to Chola Kingdom does not lead to the inference that the temples were destroyed by the Hindu kings themselves.
The NCERT is not only all set to oppose nationalism as is evident from the introductory note to teachers already referred to in the foregoing paragraphs, but is also brazenly against patriotism. In the textbook Political Theory prescribed for class XI we come across an excerpt in which Rabindranath Tagore has wrongly and disparagingly spoken against patriotism. The poet might have his own reasons for expressing such views but the NCERT was not under any compulsion to include such anti-national views in a textbook which is prescribed for immature school going children who might certainly be misled by them.
In order to bring its anti-national and anti-patriotic educational policy in limelight the NCERT has super-scribed the caption Tagore’s critique of nationalism above the poet’s impugned quote which can be seen at page 108 of the book Political Theory for Class XI.
Tagore says, “Patriotism cannot be our final spiritual shelter; my refuge is humanity. I will not buy glass for the price of diamonds and I will never allow patriotism to triumph over humanity as long as I am live.”
Is there any hostility between patriotism and humanity? Should children at schools be taught not to be loyal to their Motherland by following the lofty ideals of patriotism? Should they not be told that true patriotism can never be opposed to humanity?
A man who cannot love and serve his own mother can never love and serve mankind. There is no conflict between patriotism and humanity and the question of the one triumphing over the other does not arise as the words “I will never allow patriotism to triumph over humanity” used by Tagore suggest. It is unethical to compare patriotism with ordinary glass and humanity with costly diamonds. Both are equally important.
In the textbook of history for class XII one of the most important and also most neglected subjects—national language has been discussed under the sub-heading “The Language of the Nation”.
Instead of teaching the students to have love and respect for Hindi which alone is fit to be the national language on India the NCERT had given the following excerpt in its book on Social Science from Gandhi's thought under the sub-heading “What should the qualities of a national language be?” which, inter alia, reads as follows:
“To confine oneself to Hindi or Urdu would be a crime against intelligence and patriotism.” (Harijan Sevak, October 12, 1947). How love for one’s own national language which is spoken by the majority of the people including both Hindus and Muslims, be a crime against patriotism?
There is no language in the world like Hindustani. How could a non-existent language become the national language of India?
There is no doubt that NCERT’s textbooks are creating misleading and anti-national feelings among students. A book of history particularly that which is taught in schools must embody moral lessons for the building of the character of students. This can not be done by the NCERT or any other institution run by the Government if its policy is anti-national.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Indian History
http://www.hinduwisdom.info/FirstIndologists.htm
This is an excellent website with a lot of info.
Below is a nice statement from the site
Dr. Dipak Basu of Nagasaki University in Japan has written:
"The British historians glorify the Muslim rule in India and dismiss the Hindu period as myths and fantasy. They dismiss the Marxian analysis of the British oppression of India . They emphasize the improvements in administration, construction of railroad, universities, abolition of 'Sati' and 'Thugis' from India and ultimate peaceful transfer of power to Gandhi-Nehru. In that history, there was no freedom movement in India , no man made famines, no transfer of huge resources from India to Britain , no destruction of Indian industries and agriculture by the British rule, but only a very benign and benevolent British rule in India .
History according to the JNU or AMU is not much different."
(source: CPI(M) and Karl Marx - By Dipak Basu - indiacause.com)
This is an excellent website with a lot of info.
Below is a nice statement from the site
Dr. Dipak Basu of Nagasaki University in Japan has written:
"The British historians glorify the Muslim rule in India and dismiss the Hindu period as myths and fantasy. They dismiss the Marxian analysis of the British oppression of India . They emphasize the improvements in administration, construction of railroad, universities, abolition of 'Sati' and 'Thugis' from India and ultimate peaceful transfer of power to Gandhi-Nehru. In that history, there was no freedom movement in India , no man made famines, no transfer of huge resources from India to Britain , no destruction of Indian industries and agriculture by the British rule, but only a very benign and benevolent British rule in India .
History according to the JNU or AMU is not much different."
(source: CPI(M) and Karl Marx - By Dipak Basu - indiacause.com)
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Sita Ram Goel - The true Indian intellectual
This is a nice biography on Sita Ram Goel written by another great Indophile Koenraadt Elst.
Excerpts:
Excerpts:
"A lot of people in India and abroad talk about communalism, often in grave tones, describing it as a threat to secularism, to regional and world peace. But can anyone show us a communalist? If we look more closely into the case of any so-called communalist, we find that he turns out to be something else.
Could Syed Shahabuddin be a communalist? After all, he played a key role in the three main "Muslim communalist" issues of recent years: the Babri Masjid campaign, the Shah Bano case and the Salman Rushdie affair (it is he who got The Satanic Verses banned in September 1988). Surely, he must be India's communalist par excellence? Wrong: if you read any page of any issue of Shahabuddin's monthly Muslim India, you will find that he brandishes the notion of "secularism" as the alpha and omega of his politics, and that he directs all his attacks against Hindu "communalism". The same propensity is evident in the whole Muslim "communalist" press, e.g. the Jamaat-i Islami weekly Radiance. Moreover, on Muslim India's editorial board, you find articulate secularists like Inder Kumar Gujral, Khushwant Singh and the late P.N. Haksar.
For the same reason, any attempt to label the All-India Muslim League as communalist would be wrong. True, it is the continuation of the party which achieved the Partition of India along communal lines. Yet, emphatically secularist parties like the Congress Party and the Communist Party of India (Marxist) have never hesitated to include the Muslim League in coalitions governing the state of Kerala. No true communalist would get such a chance.
On the Hindu side then, at least the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS, "National Volunteer Corps") could qualify as "communalist"? Certainly, it is called just that by all its numerous enemies. But then, when you look through any issue of its weekly Organiser, you will find it brandishing the notion of "positive" or "genuine secularism", and denouncing "pseudo-secularism", i.e. minority communalism. Moreover, in order to prove its non-communal character, it even calls itself and its affiliated organizations (trade-union, student organization, political party etc.) "National" or "Indian" rather than "Hindu". The allied political party, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP, "Indian People's Party"), shows off the large number of Muslims among its cadres to prove how secular and non-communal it is. Even the Shiv Sena shows off its token Muslims. No, for full-blooded communalists, we have to look elsewhere.
There is only one man in India whom I have ever known to say: "I am a (Hindu) communalist." To an extent, this is in jest, as a rhetorical device to avoid the tangle in which RSS people always get trapped: being called "communalist!" and then spending the rest of your time trying to prove to your hecklers what a good secularist you are. But to an extent, it is because he accepts at least one definition of "communalism" as applying to himself, esp. to his view of India's history since the 7th century. Many historians try to prove their "secularism" by minimizing religious adherence as a factor of conflict in Indian history, and explaining so-called religious conflicts as merely a camouflage for socio-economic conflicts. By contrast, the historian under consideration accepts, and claims to have thoroughly documented, the allegedly "communalist" view that the major developments in medieval and modern Indian history can only be understood as resulting from an intrinsic hostility between religions.
Unlike the Hindutva politicians, he does not seek the cover of "genuine secularism". While accepting the notion that Hindu India has always been "secular" in the adapted Indian sense of "religiously pluralistic", he does not care for slogans like the Vishva Hindu Parishad's advertisement "Hindu India, secular India". After all, in Nehruvian India the term "secular" has by now acquired a specific meaning far removed from the original European usage, and even from the above-mentioned Indian adaptation. If Voltaire, the secularist par excellence, were to live in India today and repeat his attacks on the Church, echoing the Hindutva activists in denouncing the Churches' grip on public life in christianized pockets like Mizoram and Nagaland, he would most certainly be denounced as "anti-minority" and hence "anti-secular".
In India, the term has shed its anti-Christian bias and acquired an anti-Hindu bias instead, a phenomenon described by the author under consideration as an example of the current "perversion of India's political parlance". Therefore, he attacks the whole Nehruvian notion of "secularism" head-on, e.g. in the self-explanatory title of his Hindi booklet "Secularism: the Alternative Name for Treason". The name of India's only self-avowed communalist is Sita Ram Goel.
During the Chinese invasion in 1962, some government officials including P.N. Haksar, Nurul Hasan and the later Prime Minister I.K. Gujral, demanded Goel's arrest. But at the same time, the Home Ministry invited him to take a leadership role in the plans for a guerrilla war against the then widely-expected Chinese occupation of eastern India. He made his co-operation conditional on Nehru's abdication as Prime Minister, and nothing ever came of it.
In 1963, Goel had a book published under his own name which he had published in 1961-62 as a series in Organiser under the pen name Ekaki ("solitary"): a critique of Nehru's consistent pro-Communist policies, titled In Defence of Comrade Krishna Menon. An update of this book was published in 1993: Genesis and Growth of Nehruism. The serial in Organiser had been discontinued after 16 installments because Eknath Ranade and A.B. Vajpayee feared that if any harm came to Nehru, the RSS would be accused of having "created the climate", as in the Gandhi murder case.
In it, Goel questioned the current fashion of attributing India's Communist-leaning foreign policy to Defence Minister Krishna Menon, and demonstrated that Nehru himself had been a consistent Communist sympathizer ever since his visit to the Soviet Union in 1927. Nehru had stuck to his Communist sympathies even when the Communists insulted him as Prime Minister with their unbridled scatologism. Nehru was too British and too middle-class to opt for a fully authoritarian socialism, but like many European Leftists he supported just such regimes when it came to foreign policy. Thus, Nehru's absolute refusal to support the Tibetans even at the diplomatic level when they were overrun by the Chinese army ("a Far-Eastern Munich", according to Minoo Masani: Against the Tide, Vikas Publ., Delhi 1981, p.45.), cannot just be attributed to circumstances or the influence of his collaborators: his hand-over of Tibet to Communist China was quite consistent with his own political convictions."
"While refuting the common explanation that the pro-Communist bias in Nehru's foreign policy was merely the handiwork of Minister Krishna Menon, Goel also drew attention to the harmfulness of this policy to India's national interests. This critique of Nehru's pro-China policies was eloquently vindicated by the Chinese invasion in October 1962, but it cost Goel his job. He withdrew from the political debate, went into business himself and set up Impex India, a company of book import and export with a modest publishing capacity."
"Goel's declared aim is to defend Hinduism by placing before the public correct information about the situation of Hindu culture and society, and about the nature, motives and strategies of its enemies. For, as the title of his book Hindu Society under Siege indicates, Goel claims that Hindu society has been suffering a sustained attack from Islam since the 7th century, from Christianity since the 15th century, this century also from Marxism, and all three have carved out a place for themselves in Indian society from which they besiege Hinduism. The avowed objective of each of these three world-conquering movements, with their massive resources, is diagnosed as the replacement of Hinduism by their own ideology, or in effect: the destruction of Hinduism."
"Most Hindu leaders expressly refuse to search Islamic doctrine for a reason for the observed fact of Muslim hostility. RSS leader Guru Golwalkar once said: "Islam is a great religion. Mohammed was a great prophet. But the Muslims are big fools." (Delhi ca. 1958) This is not logical, for the one thing that unites the (otherwise diverse) community of Muslims, is their common belief in Mohammed and the Quran: if any wrong is attributed to "the Muslims" as such, it must be situated in their common belief system. Therefore, Goel's position is just the opposite: not the Muslims are the problem, but Islam and Mohammed."
"Goel's alternative to the RSS variety of "Muslim appeasement" is to wage an ideological struggle against Islam and Christianity, on the lines of the rational criticism and secularist politics which have pushed back Christian self-righteousness in Europe. The Muslim community, of course, is not to be a scapegoat (as it is for those who refuse to criticize Islam and end up attacking Muslims instead), but has to be seen in the proper historical perspective: as a part of Hindu society estranged from its ancestral culture by Islamic indoctrination over generations. Their hearts and minds have to be won back by an effort of consciousness-raising, which includes education about the aims, methods and historical record of religions."
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Communist Historians
Found a brilliant piece by Yvette Rosser on a blog that I follow,
http://indianrealist.wordpress.com/2009/01/18/communist-historians-the-enemy-within
It is from a paper submitted in the International Conference on Indian History held in New Delhi between Jan 9-11, 2009 meant to highlight and clarify the deliberately falsified marxist and missionary tainted history being taught in our schools.
According to the organizers,
“the purpose of the Conference is to decolonize various aspects of ancient Indian history and its chronology which were deliberately distorted and mis-dated during the British Raj with a view to cause confusion and a sense of inferiority among Indians. ICIH 2009 aims to contribute toward correcting this mangled historical narrative of the Indian civilization. Much of the ancient Indian history taught to our youth today has absolutely no basis in fact and is not supported by modern research. This is causing terrible cultural damage to our society and has to be set right urgently by taking a more rational view of the past.”
This is a must read and I am giving some excerpts below,
"For the leftists, Akbar is sacrosanct, the “Father of Indian integration”–a model of communal harmony because he is seen as less “fanatical” and more “Indianized” 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 “secularism” of Akbar’s 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."
"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 “tainted by Saffron” or “Nationalism”, the “Delhi historians” 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."
"To conclude this rather lengthy excursion into the writings of the famous, some would say, infamous, “Sangh” 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."
http://indianrealist.wordpress.com/2009/01/18/communist-historians-the-enemy-within
It is from a paper submitted in the International Conference on Indian History held in New Delhi between Jan 9-11, 2009 meant to highlight and clarify the deliberately falsified marxist and missionary tainted history being taught in our schools.
According to the organizers,
“the purpose of the Conference is to decolonize various aspects of ancient Indian history and its chronology which were deliberately distorted and mis-dated during the British Raj with a view to cause confusion and a sense of inferiority among Indians. ICIH 2009 aims to contribute toward correcting this mangled historical narrative of the Indian civilization. Much of the ancient Indian history taught to our youth today has absolutely no basis in fact and is not supported by modern research. This is causing terrible cultural damage to our society and has to be set right urgently by taking a more rational view of the past.”
This is a must read and I am giving some excerpts below,
"For the leftists, Akbar is sacrosanct, the “Father of Indian integration”–a model of communal harmony because he is seen as less “fanatical” and more “Indianized” 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 “secularism” of Akbar’s 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."
"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 “tainted by Saffron” or “Nationalism”, the “Delhi historians” 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."
"To conclude this rather lengthy excursion into the writings of the famous, some would say, infamous, “Sangh” 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."
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Revisiting the past
Found a very good post in a blog which gives a brilliant summary of the Gandhi's influence on India during the freedom movement and after. It is based on a three volume magnum opus by an impeccable historian, R.C. Majumdar.
http://scottpecksez.blogspot.com/2006/09/facts-that-are-not-there-in-our.html
Background of the author
The late R.C. Majumdar, often called the dean of Indian historians, completed a three-volume work on the Indian Freedom Movement. In this he put forward two fundamental theses that few Indian historians were willing to face. First, Gandhi's role in the achievement of freedom was exaggerated by the beneficiaries of his 'legacy'. Next, the freedom movement demonstrated that the Muslim leadership - if not the masses - was concerned more with Pan-Islamic issues than national issues, and Gandhi often acquiesced to it. As example, Majumdar cited Gandhi's defense of the Ali brothers when they invited the Amir of Afghanistan to invade India in defense of Islam. The Ali brothers actually went further. They claimed that such a jehad (holy war) would be carried out not only against the British, but also against the Hindus who refused to cooperate in the enterprise. (This was discussed in some detail in Part I.) Little of this is found in history books in use today. As Majumdar points out, all this has been whitewashed to suit the political interests of certain groups. The result is massive distortion of history.
Excerpt:
"The fact is that the Congress Party today, which he led for nearly quarter of a century, has fallen into the hands of an elite that is largely hostile to the Indian tradition and culture which the Mahatma embodied; it is now the hands of individuals representing interests and values far removed from the people of India. Its recent electoral fortunes seem to underline this failure. How do we account for this phenomenon of the successors of Gandhi being simultaneously alienated from the people and their tradition and in turn rejected by them? This alone is sufficient to call for a reexamination of Gandhi and his contribution to nationalism. To understand the present, we must visit the past."
"The Congress party, the dominant political institution in the half-century after independence, treats him as its icon. As a result, any criticism of Gandhi and his politics is likely to bring down the wrath of interested parties who hold up his 'saintliness' as a counter-argument. His martyrdom is invariably brought up in silencing arguments against his policies and actions.
This creates a peculiar problem for anyone trying to study the history associated with Gandhi and his times. Gandhi the Saint intrudes on the scene whenever one tries to unravel the complexities of Gandhi the Politician. And yet it was Gandhi the Politician and not Gandhi the Saint who dominated the national scene in the decades leading to independence. It was Gandhi the Politician, and not the Saint who turned Swaraj into a movement in support of the theocratic aims of the Khilafat; it was Gandhi the Politician and not the Saint who expelled Subhash Bose after his election as Congress president; it was Gandhi the Politician and not the Saint who imposed Pandit Nehru over Sardar Patel as prime minister of India against the wishes of the party; it was also Gandhi the Politician and not the Saint who imposed his will on the newly formed Congress Government to release funds for Pakistan which was then at war with India."
"In January 1948, many Hindu and Sikh refugees in Delhi had taken shelter in some abandoned mosques. Gandhi put pressure on the Congress Government to have these refugees evicted from these temporary homes. As a result, a large number of refugees — including women and children — were forced to spend the nights in the cold rain. Such heartless behavior in the service of an abstract principle (which no one understood) only exacerbated mutual hatred already at fever pitch. It is an irony of history that the 'Apostle of Nonviolence' was directly responsible for two of the most violent explosions of this violent century. This is inevitable when one selectively imposes dual standards. "
http://scottpecksez.blogspot.com/2006/09/facts-that-are-not-there-in-our.html
Background of the author
The late R.C. Majumdar, often called the dean of Indian historians, completed a three-volume work on the Indian Freedom Movement. In this he put forward two fundamental theses that few Indian historians were willing to face. First, Gandhi's role in the achievement of freedom was exaggerated by the beneficiaries of his 'legacy'. Next, the freedom movement demonstrated that the Muslim leadership - if not the masses - was concerned more with Pan-Islamic issues than national issues, and Gandhi often acquiesced to it. As example, Majumdar cited Gandhi's defense of the Ali brothers when they invited the Amir of Afghanistan to invade India in defense of Islam. The Ali brothers actually went further. They claimed that such a jehad (holy war) would be carried out not only against the British, but also against the Hindus who refused to cooperate in the enterprise. (This was discussed in some detail in Part I.) Little of this is found in history books in use today. As Majumdar points out, all this has been whitewashed to suit the political interests of certain groups. The result is massive distortion of history.
Excerpt:
"The fact is that the Congress Party today, which he led for nearly quarter of a century, has fallen into the hands of an elite that is largely hostile to the Indian tradition and culture which the Mahatma embodied; it is now the hands of individuals representing interests and values far removed from the people of India. Its recent electoral fortunes seem to underline this failure. How do we account for this phenomenon of the successors of Gandhi being simultaneously alienated from the people and their tradition and in turn rejected by them? This alone is sufficient to call for a reexamination of Gandhi and his contribution to nationalism. To understand the present, we must visit the past."
"The Congress party, the dominant political institution in the half-century after independence, treats him as its icon. As a result, any criticism of Gandhi and his politics is likely to bring down the wrath of interested parties who hold up his 'saintliness' as a counter-argument. His martyrdom is invariably brought up in silencing arguments against his policies and actions.
This creates a peculiar problem for anyone trying to study the history associated with Gandhi and his times. Gandhi the Saint intrudes on the scene whenever one tries to unravel the complexities of Gandhi the Politician. And yet it was Gandhi the Politician and not Gandhi the Saint who dominated the national scene in the decades leading to independence. It was Gandhi the Politician, and not the Saint who turned Swaraj into a movement in support of the theocratic aims of the Khilafat; it was Gandhi the Politician and not the Saint who expelled Subhash Bose after his election as Congress president; it was Gandhi the Politician and not the Saint who imposed Pandit Nehru over Sardar Patel as prime minister of India against the wishes of the party; it was also Gandhi the Politician and not the Saint who imposed his will on the newly formed Congress Government to release funds for Pakistan which was then at war with India."
"In January 1948, many Hindu and Sikh refugees in Delhi had taken shelter in some abandoned mosques. Gandhi put pressure on the Congress Government to have these refugees evicted from these temporary homes. As a result, a large number of refugees — including women and children — were forced to spend the nights in the cold rain. Such heartless behavior in the service of an abstract principle (which no one understood) only exacerbated mutual hatred already at fever pitch. It is an irony of history that the 'Apostle of Nonviolence' was directly responsible for two of the most violent explosions of this violent century. This is inevitable when one selectively imposes dual standards. "
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
