Antiquity and Continuity of Indian History.docx

Economic and Political Weekly, 2024

2021

Journal of Hindu-Christian Studies, 2013

Jamal Malik deals with Muslim constructions of the past in and about India in the period of the Delhi Sultanate (1206–1526) and the Mughal empire (1526–1857). His contribution is based on an analysis of the writings of Zia al-Din al-Barani (1285–1357 CE) and Amir Khusrau (1253–1325 CE), two important political theorists, as well as those of Ahmad Sirhindi (1564–1624 CE), famous for his theological critique, and of Ghulam `Ali Azad al-Bilgrami (1704–1786 CE), a prominent historian. Malik analyses the writings of these actors and their discourses related to the interpretation of history. His protagonists re-constructed and re-narrated historical accounts by referring to specific notions of the past and Malik shows that their positions toward Hindu, Greek, and Islamic norms and their perceptions of the past differed significantly. Nevertheless, two major trends can be made out in this context. On the one hand, this was the adab tradition, which increasingly defended the norms of shari’ah in their narrow judicial sense; on the other stood a set of Persianate norms of comportment informed by ethical literature, liberal Sufi discourses, and a flexible interpretation of Islamic law, which Malik calls the akhlaqi tradition. These norms were highly influenced by the Persian polymath Nasir al-Din al-Tusi (1201–1274 CE), who refers to a large degree on Aristotelian ethics. Looking at his protagonists, the author shows that the construction of Muslim histories in India always required and were subject to the character of the Prophet Muhammad, who functioned as the prime reference point. Nevertheless, the authors’ narratives differed: some (like Barani and Sirhindi), following the adab tradition, criticized the decline in the present, while others (Khusrau and Bilgrami) saw India as some sort of paradise on earth. Generally, these writings were religious and normative and included orientation and positioning, and an insistence on continuity or on change. They historized or de-historized cultural memories or silenced variant reading and tradition. Thus meanings and relevance were produced and appropriated events were transposed into the past. It might be self-assertive and drawing boundaries, including or excluding people (othering people). According to Malik, historiography was of special importance in situations of uncertainty and conflict, when social and political roles and power structures were contested.

Varying interpretations, even controversies, are common in the history of every nation, but India seems to have more than a fair share of them. In fact, Indian history appears to be as much a battlefield as the bygone wars it describes. In a 1942 article entitled " 'Histories' of India," K.M. Munshi wrote, "Most of our

Asian Studies Review, 1996

The Hindutva Brigade and the re-writing of Indian History, 2021

The efforts, of the Bharatiya Janata Party, Rashtreeya Swayamsevak Sangh and the Hindu Mahasabha Combine along with their fringe organizations known as the Hindutva Brigade, to 're-write' (some say re-right) Indian history are not new. The Brigade has been clamoring for rewriting Indian history ever since the days of the formation of the Hindu Mahasabha, the earliest incarnation of the Brigade when its father figure V.D. Savarkar tried his hand at rewriting Indian history. But then it started gathering steam after 1977 when it shared power at the center as part of the then Janata Party and went full steam under Murli Manohar Joshi who was the Human Resources Development Minister in Atal Bihari Vajapeyi's Ministry from 1998 to 2004. Without a committed and pro-active HRD Minister in Modi's Ministries, the efforts are now limping, though very much alive and kicking. Kicking because recently Union Home Minister Amit Shah, in a seminar at Banaras Hindu University, spoke about the need to "rewrite history" from an "Indian point of view" and went on to ask, "who is stopping us from amending history". While he was only a Home Minister and was hence talking about 'amending' history, it must be noted at the beginning itself, that for the Brigade, 'Indian' means 'Hindu' and hence what the Minister meant by 'Indian point of view' was actually 'Hindu point of view'. 2. History is based on evidence-written, numismatic, archeological, or otherwise and its interpretation. Interpretations can be changed depending on the theory that one develops based on the available data. For example, the theory of Aryan invasion has been changed to the theory of Aryan migration, but both the theories are based on two different interpretations of the same set of facts. However, if new data is discovered, then also history can be rewritten to integrate the new data in the existing matrix or to develop a new theory. Hence history is constantly rewritten as new data is found warranting rewriting. The Hindutva Brigade and the rewriting of Indian History Page 2 of 28 3. Subir Roy, a senior journalist says "It is not as if history is not rewritten. That is in fact a continuous process. Revisionism is the birthright of every new generation of historians. In fact, you can come closer to the truth only through a process of repeated re-evaluation". 1 4. If the efforts of the Brigade were only aimed at rewriting Indian history, there was no need to take it seriously. However, the Brigade's clamor for rewriting history has not only to be taken seriously but also even countered forcefully as it is a significant part of the Brigade's agenda to convert India into a Hindu Rashtra. 5. Here is an instance of what is the objective of the exercise. The Union Minister for Culture in NDA-1, Mahesh Sharma, appointed a 14 member committee with K.N.Dikshit as the Chairman, to rewrite the ancient Indian History with the aim of proving that Hindus were the original inhabitants of India and that the epics are histories and not myths. Reuters reported that the Chairman said that these are the conclusions that the committee wants to reach. So, the committee was not to investigate and find out if the propositions were true but was to reach those conclusions. 6. Nobody can prevent anybody from writing or rewriting history, whether as a new interpretation of the existing data or on finding new data. But the Brigade lacks the talent required for such an exercise. It has not been able to produce any scholarly and significant writing or rewriting of Indian history. In its 17.12.2001 issue, the Outlook said that "The Hindutva brigade is sadly short of historians to claim as its own." Even Dr.R.C.Majumdar, whom the Brigade tries to claim as their man, did not agree with K.M.Munshi's theory that India was the Aryan homeland and even refused to write articles for an RSS weekly since it had published articles claiming that the monuments like the Red Fort and the Taj Mahal had been built by Hindu Kings. 7. The names flaunted as writers or re-writers of Indian history from the Hindutva point of view are the likes of P.N. Oak and Dinanath Batra, both of whom qualify more as political propogandists than as historians. The only other name was that of Archeologist B.B. Lal. However, the main grievance of the Brigade is that the 'text-books' prescribed, particularly by the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) for the pre-degree classes prepared by the left and liberal oriented historians, have presented a distorted history of India undermining Hindu culture and giving undue importance to Muslim culture. Batra calls these textbook writers as "The Enemies of Indianization: The Children of Marx, Macaulay and Madarsa". 2 8. Mridula Mukherjee and Aditya Mukherjee, both Professors of History, Centre for Historical Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, retort by saying that these Hindutva historians are "the direct descendants of James Mill, who first divided the history of India into Hindu period, Muslim period and British period" 3. However, the Brigade does not feel any remorse while chartering the services of foreigners like David Frawly, awarded Padma Bhushan in 2015 by the Modi Government and Koenraad Elst who had said that "Every Muslim is a Sita who must be released from Ravana's prison. We should help Muslims in freeing themselves from Islam …". 4 9. The Brigade's plan to rewrite Indian history is an important segment of its overall plan for creating a Hindu Rashtra. Hence, they say that the History of India should be rewritten from the Hindu or Hindutva point of view. But to construct a new structure they must first demolish the existing structure, as the continued existence of the earlier structure would result in comparison and offer a choice to the people. Perhaps they wish to do it at two levels. First, at the level of textbooks, firstly by getting what they consider as 'offensive' portions removed from the existing textbooks and secondly thereafter writing new textbooks from the Hindutva point of view inserting information which they think helps in their project. Second, at the level of books on History, 2 Title of the Book published in 2001.