Looking at the Past: Jaundiced Views

Ram Puniyani

Using the jaundiced version of the past is one of the biggest tools of communal forces. The prevalence of hatred towards ‘other’ communities is rooted in the versions of past which are part carry over from the past legacy introduced by British and part constructed by the communalists, who in turn ‘select’ the incidents and distort it in such a way so as to fit in their scheme of things. The same incident may be interpreted from opposite angles by competing communal ideology. This view of past at one level glorifies the kings of one’s own religion while looks down upon the kings of other religion. So, for example, currently there is an assertion to call Rana Pratap as great. Why and how some king becomes great? The parameters differ.

Sometimes in the same region the interpretation of king varies with different castes and different religions, and this is so much true about Maharashtra’s Shivaji. For some he the one who is devoted to cows and Brahmins, for others he is the one concerned about welfare of rayyat (farmers). The most important distortion of presenting king in the identity of his religion is that the underlying system of authoritarianism and feudal exploitation gets undermined, hidden from the popular perception. Also the very concept that Kingdoms did not have the concept of citizenship and nation state also goes for the toss and the claim of origin of nationalism starts taking root from the first king of that religion, like Mohammad Bin Kasim being regarded as the founder of Islamic nationalism. Here Hindu communalists claim to be a nation state from the Anaadi Kal (Past beyond boundaries), irrespective of what might have been the pattern of social organization, tribe, clan, kingdom etc., at that time.

In this again; some kings become good and some bad. As such all of them are sitting on the top of system of exploitation of the peasantry and prevalence of all the norms like caste hierarchy and patriarchy, which cannot be accepted today. The construction of Hindu communalism roots itself on demonization of Muslim kings and Aurangzeb seems to be leading the pack of such villains in the perceptions prevailing in Indian part of the subcontinent. Guided by these unshakable perceptions; one BJP MP called for the change of name of Aurangzeb road in Delhi, to APJ Abdul Kalam Road.

This was done in a total violation of prevailing practice of how the roads are named. It was upheld by the self proclaimed messiah of anti corruption movement Arvind Kejrival. The name changing was supposed to be an exercise in righting the wrongs of history! What has been right in the history is another matter of infinite debate and the answer will depend on which side of social ideology one is. What is right from the point of view of poor farmers, or dalits or Adivasis or women is a million dollar question. Glorying of Kings; barring those who stood up to protect the social interests of downtrodden; is very questionable.

All said and done Aurangzeb has been demonized to the extent that very mention of his name sends a shock to most of those who have imbibed the prevalent notions about him. Can one shake off the perception about his being so power hungry and that he killed his own brother Dara Shikoh for sake of power? The simple fact is the same thing applies to many kings. Emperor Ashok killed many of his cousins for coming to power. As late as in recent times the killing of Birendra Singh by his brother King Gyanendra is on the same lines. The conspiracies in the royal families have been part of the power structure of kingdoms all over.

What about Aurangzeb’s goal of converting the people to Islam on the point of the sword. To begin with Islam did not spread due to the Muslim kings; mostly it was the caste structure to escape which many shudras embraced Islam. Swami Vivekanand in his collected works Volume VIII, Page330 points out that conversion to Islam was to escape the caste system’s atrocities.  Islam also spread due to social interaction as in Mewat and Malabar Coast. What about Guru Gobinds’ sons being beheaded by Aurangzeb, was it an attempt to conversion or an attempt to humiliate the defeated king? This example cited in this case is that of a king who was defeated in battle and so when he sought pardon; this insulting condition was put. Alexander Hamilton, a British historian, toured India towards the end of Aurangzeb’s fifty year’s reign & observed that everyone was free to serve & worship god in his own way.

If Aurangzeb and other Muslims kings were here for the goal of conversions, in the whole eight hundred years of their rule; most of the population would have become Muslims. And how come so many court officials in their courts, who are having high designations, continued to retain their Hindu faith? They would have been ideal subjects for conversions. What about the dreaded Jazia? As per Prof. Harbans Mukhia, scholar of medieval history, Aurangzeb imposed jazia in 1669, well 21 years after his coming to power. The taxation policies of different kings had been changing from time to time. While able bodied Hindu males were to pay jazia, zakat was the tax to be paid by Muslims. There were many other taxes which Aurangzeb had lifted also. Jazia has got stuck in popular perception as a sign of Aurangzeb being anti Hindu. Then; what about the destruction of Vishwanth temple and building of mosque on the top of that?

There are some temples which were destroyed by him and some others supported with grants. A stone inscription in the historic Balaji or Vishnu temple, located north of Chitrakut, Balaghat, still shows that it was commissioned by the emperor Aurangzeb himself. His administration made handsome donations to temple of Pandharpur the seat of deity Vithoba. The great temples of Mahakaleshwara, Ujjain, Balaji temple, Chitrakut, Umanand temple Gauhati, & the Jain temple of Shatrunjai and gurudwaras scattered over northern India also received his grants. These firmans (court orders) were issued from 1659 to 1685AD. Dr. Vishambharnath Pandey did collect number of firmans of Aurangzeb where he gives the grants to Hindu temples. So how does one explain the contradiction? It is simple; due to factors related to power some temples were destroyed. To keep the subjects in good humor temples were also supported and to eliminate the sources of rebellions concentrating in temples others were destroyed as well.

The British must be having the last laugh! The history writing which they introduced was giving the king only a single identity, that of religion. Hindu and Muslim communal streams picked it up and modified it to suit their political goals of polarization of communities around them. The additional factor was that the British also had to win over the loyalty of the subjects from the earlier rulers, the Muslim-Mughal kings. So the formulation that they have come here as liberators from the cruel Muslim rule. What this meant for the sub continent is too well known by now with Shahshi Tharoor’s Oxford lecture going viral and telling us the extent of plunder done by these liberators, who claim they came here as part of ‘civilizing mission of the east’.

Akbar and Aurangzeb are presented in contrasting colors, Dara Shikoh in yet another hue. All of them do represent the different shades of the personalities of the kings, but kings they were, primarily the head of the feudal system of society. The name changing game is part of the communal agenda of divisive nationalism, which feels the Emperor who ruled this part of the subcontinent for forty nine long years cannot have a road in his name.  

Read More

Saffronisation of Education: Political Ideology and Interpretation of History

Ram Puniyani

Our sub continent, which has a common past; shares its history, there are diverse ways of looking at the same history by groups belonging to different political ideologies. With the change of Government in Delhi, the leading institutions are having a major policy shift, organizations like Indian Council of Historical Research, National Council for Education, Research and Training amongst others, as they have got heads whose qualification is not excellence in their disciplines but their proximity to ideology of ruling dispensation. These are the institutions which delve in to history, education and most of the disciplines related to social sciences. The change of the policy seems to be guided by BJP’s parent organization, RSS whose political ideology is Hindu nationalism in contrast to the values of Indian Constitution, the one of Indian Nationalism. To give an indication of the same RSS Chief (Sarsanghchalak) stated (March 3, 2015) that Indian history should be saffronised. To back him up BJP leader and ex Minister of MHRD Murli Manohar Joshi said that the call to saffronise Indian history is necessary and the concerned Minister should feel proud in saffronising the history books.

What is saffronisation of History books? This term was coined by the progressive rational historians and intellectuals to criticize the move of same Dr. Joshi when he was minister of Human Resource Development, the ministry which also deals with education, in Vajpayee led NDA Government (1998) and had brought serious changes in the curriculum, education and social science-history books. The books which were introduced during his tenure had statements like, it is because we are the children of Manu that we are known as manushya or manav (human), scientists consider plants as inanimate, while the Hindus consider them as animate and to have life, on refusing to accept Islam Banda Bairagi had the heart of his son thrust down his throat, Sati is presented as a Rajput tradition that we should be proud of, etc. Similar distortions in medieval period were; Qutub Minar was built by emperor Samudragupta and its real name was Vishnu Stambha. At another level the battles for power between Shivaji and Afzal Khan, the battle between Akbar and Maharana Pratap, Guru Govind Singh and Aurangzeb was given religious color.

These changes came under scholarly criticism from the professional, progressive, secular historians. They coined the term ‘Saffronisation of education’ for this presentation of history. In the face of the criticism the same Murali Manohar Joshi said that the changes in the history books are not saffronisation, its mere correcting the distortions in the history (April 2003) Now turning around due to newer political equations; he is owning the same term, saffronisation, as a matter of pride.

It was British who introduced the Communal historiography in India. This historiography is a way of looking at the historical phenomenon through the lens of religion. The same history in a modified way was picked up by the Hindu and Muslim communalists. In sum and substance, Hindu communalists, Hindu Nationalists presented that India was a Hindu nation from times immemorial and Muslims and Christians and Muslims are foreigners here. The Muslim communal history began from the invasion of Sindh by Mohammad bin Kasim bin in 8^th century and claimed that Muslims were the rulers of this land so British should hand over power to them once they leave. A version of this prevails in Pakistan History books today.

In contrast; those identifying with secular, democratic Indian national movement presented a view of history where religion of King was not the main determining factor of his policies. This view was also presented by the leader of freedom movement, Mahatma Gandhi. In his book Hind Swaraj he writes, “The Hindus flourished under Moslem sovereigns and Moslems under the Hindu. Each party recognized that mutual fighting was suicidal, and that neither party would abandon its religion by force of arms. Both parties, therefore, decided to live in peace. With the English advent quarrels recommenced… Should we not remember that many Hindus and Mohammedans own the same ancestors and the same blood runs through their veins? Do people become enemies because they change their religion? Is the God of the Mohammedan different from the God of the Hindu? Religions are different roads converging to the same point. What does it matter that we take different roads so long as we reach the same goal? Wherein is the cause of quarreling?”

After getting independence, in India while the British introduced pattern continued for some time, gradually serious historical research and rational approach started entering the history books. Along with formation of NCERT, the books with rational viewpoint did replace the ones’ with communal interpretation, in schools, which were having NCERT curriculum. With the coming to power of BJP led National Democratic Alliance from 1998, Dr. Joshi brought in the communalization of curriculum and saffronisation of education. With NDA’s defeat in 2004, the Congress led UPA came to power and it gradually and to some extent, restored the spirit of scientific temper and rational thought in education and to some extent scrapped communal version of history in books. The communal version of history in a way is a fiction suiting the political agenda of ‘Religious nationalism’, whether in Pakistan or India. So Here in India a Taj Mahal becomes Tejo Mahalay, a Shiv Temple and the freedom struggle is presented as a religious was against Muslims, Muslim kings are blamed for destruction of temples and spreading Islam by sword. The divisive mind set is promoted for political goals. In books in Pakistan Muslim Kings are Heroes and Hindu kings nobody!

Apart from the official school text books as such RSS has been running a chain of schools, Sarswati Shishu Mandirs, Ekal Vidyalayas and Vidya Bharati, which are using the version of History. It is this version form RSS stable schools, which they are proposing for the state run institutions. This is what will be a very divisive move for our plural country with immense diversity. 

Read More

Modi on Rampage: Reckless Abuse of History

Ram Puniyani

History is not just the past. It is a potent weapon for various political agendas in the present. It can be clearly seen in the use of history in rise of Hindu-Muslim rightwing in India. As far as presently dominant Hindu national politics is concerned, this abuse of history can be seen in the type and period of History used. When Meenaxipuram, conversions of dalits to Islam took place in 1981, the message taken up was that of Islam’s spreading in India as a ‘threat’. With the rise of Ram Temple movement, the indication was towards the Muslim kings’ destroying Hindu temples and insulting Hindu religion. The Babri demolition and consequent violence had the underlying propaganda of temple destructions by Muslim kings. At the same time a slogan came up ‘Muslaman ka do hi sthan: Kabristhan ya Pakistan (only two places for Muslims: Pakistan or graveyard), asserting that India is meant only for Hindus. As we move a bit more towards Gujarat carnage 2002 we see the projection of ‘terrorism’ and Muslims on one hand and the projection of Miyan Musharraf as the symbol of Indian Muslims. In Maharashtra Shivaji was projected in various ways to show the tyranny of Muslim kings. Currently serials like Bharat ka mahan Saput Rana Pratap, and Jodha Akbar also give the same message.

Lately the present history, history of Modern India is under the chopping block of communal forces. On one hand the projection of Sardar Patel, with emphasis on his being anti-Nehru and the other various conjectures of this period are being dished out. It is being asserted that Congress ‘facilitated Partition’ (Narendra Modi while talking in Kheda in Gujarat). This is a very motivated statement. As a matter of fact the two major leaders who were handling the negotiations at that time, on behalf of Congress, were Pundit Jawaharlal Nehru and Sardar Patel. Mr. Jaswant Singh’s book on Jinnah, taking one sided view blames Nehru-Patel for partition. It was banned by Modi in Gujarat, as he won’t brook any criticism of Sardar Patel. Here with a forked tongue, two things are being said at the same time, Patel eulogized for his contribution and Congress being blamed for partition, unmindful of the fact that it was Nehru-Patel duo, which was acting together on the issue of India’s partition.

That way the tragedy of India’s partition is like a big canvass, and most of the commentators look at the part of the canvass which suits their politics and put all the focus on that. This focusing on one part of canvass, selective historiography, is due to the motives and political understanding of these commentators. Seeing the whole process will tell us a different tale. The partition tragedy cannot be located just in the final phase when the negotiations between British rulers, Muslim League and Congress were going on. Partition process was the culmination of a long process, which began with the aftermath of anti-British revolution in 1857. The first factor in the process of division was the British decision to implement the policy of ‘Divide and rule”, thereby to introduce communal historiography. The second major factor was the persistence of feudal classes despite the beginning of industrialization and modern education. These feudal elements, the declining classes, felt threatened by the rising, nascent democratic nationalism, as represented in the formation of various organizations of industrialists, workers and educated classes and the formation of Indian National Congress. These declining classes, Hindus and Muslims landlord-kings, were together in the beginning. One major step in the direction to break them along religious lines was Lord Elphinstone’s encouragement to Muslim landlords, Nawabs, and to recognize them as representatives of Muslims. This led to formation of Muslim League in 1906. In tandem with this Punjab Hindu Sabha came up in 1909, Hindu Mahasabha in 1915 and RSS in 1925. These communal organizations started getting support from section of educated elite apart from some upper castes and traditional traders. These communal organizations were against democratic nationalism and articulated religious nationalism.

A group photo of people accused in the Mahatma Gandhi's murder case. Standing: Shankar Kistaiya, Gopal Godse, Madanlal Pahwa, Digambar Badge. Sitting: Narayan Apte, Vinayak D. Savarkar, Nathuram Godse, Vishnu Karkare
(Courtesy: Wikipedia)

The third and major theoretical expression for partition comes from the ideologue of Hindu Mahsasabha, Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, who said that there are two nations in the country, the Hindu nation and Muslim nation. The separate country for Muslims was articulated by Chowdhary Rahmat Ali in 1930, Pakistan. This got politically consolidated in 1940 with Jinnah’s demand for a separate country in the form of Pakistan (West and East). Fourth important step in the direction was the fact that the demand of Pakistan suited the designs of British colonialist’s long term plan to have a base in South Asia. As Communism, Soviet block was progressing and inspiring leaders of many national movements, like China Vietnam in particular, colonialists wanted to counter this by having a political base in South Asia. In India, Soviet Union inspired the communist and socialist movement. People of the caliber of Nehru, Jaya Prakash Narayan and others were with Congress Socialist Party, an in-house organization within Congress. Seeing the influence of socialist ideology on the major leaders of national movement, the colonialists and imperialists were keen that India should not remain united. There keenness of partition encouraged the demand of Pakistan.

Congress at this point of time found itself in a trap. On one side the stalwarts of National movement, Gandhi and Mualana Azad were opposed to the partition in the deeper political way. Nehru and Patel; experienced the blockades put up by the Muslim League in interim government. The choice before this duo was either to go on with a Cripps mission plan, which gave very little power to the center, or to go for partition and have a strong Center in India. The calculation of Nehru was that without the centralized economy; country cannot progress. The Bombay plan, economic blueprint of industrialists, wanted the state to provide for heavy industries, as industrialists realized that they are not capable for setting up large industries. This was parallel to the vision of Nehru, who envisaged land reforms and industrialization to take India forward. Sardar Patel had the vision of the strong center so he was also not for the loose federation of states as provisioned by Cripps mission.

To blame Congress of facilitating India’s partition is nowhere close to the truth. But the way History, even the modern Indian history, is being bulldozed for the political convenience, and the eagerness to grab power come what may, sacrificing the truth, is not a big deal for the communal politicians.  

Read More