Teaching History: Dos and Don’ts
It is now a time worn cliché that the teaching of Indian history has been distorted. The real question is how to correct it. A committed teacher has taken in important by showing how to go about doing it. Navaratna Srinivasa Rajaram (NS Rajaram) provides us with an in depth analysis.
Speaking before the Kerala History Association, Kochi on 18 Dec. 2005, Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam, then President and perhaps the most respected intellectual in India observed: “The best historians present us with descriptions and analyses of the past that make unfamiliar times and places somehow comprehensible. In seeking to penetrate the veil of the past, we end up by studying how other individuals and societies dealt with the practical and existential problems at least related to our own.”
After this sage observation, Dr. Kalam came specifically to Indian history and noted: “My observation is that in India many have written history of India [coming] both from the Indian historians recently and by those who had conquered us. So far, even 58 years after Independence, the dogmas, rituals, systems and norms of the historical past, imposed by the last millennium of invasion and conquest, still continue to condition our minds.” Most tellingly he emphasized:
“We tend more to conform to the past, rather than think in true freedom and create a future, free from the pain of the past. Now time has come, in the 21st century, we need new breed of historians who can make the past meet the present and create the future…”
More than a century before Dr. Kalam, Swami Vivekananda told a group of youngsters (1891): “Study Sanskrit, but along with it study Western sciences as well. Learn accuracy, my boys, study and labor so that the time will come when you can put our history on a scientific basis… The histories of our country written by English writers cannot but be weakening to our minds, for they talk only of our downfall. How can foreigners, who understand very little of our manners and customs, or our religion and philosophy, write faithful and unbiased histories of India?”
He then went on to observe: “Naturally many false notions and wrong inferences have found their way into them. Nevertheless they have shown us how to proceed making researches into our ancient history. Now it is for us to strike out an independent path of historical research for ourselves, to study the Vedas and Puranas and the ancient annals (Itihasas) of India, and from them make it your sadhana (disciplined endeavor) to write accurate, sympathetic and soul-inspiring history of India. It is for Indians to write Indian history.”
Without resorting to polemics, Vivekananda exhorted his youthful audience to “…never cease to labor until you have revived the glorious past of India in the consciousness of the people. That will be the true national education, and with its advancement, a true national spirit will be awakened.” What he left unsaid was that such an approach would need them to develop new tools of historical research leading to new methodologies
One scholar who appears to have taken this message to heart is Smt Kamlesh Kapur, an educator of great experience both in India and the U.S. She has put her knowledge, experience and the spirit invoked by Dr. Kalam and Swami Vivekananda into practice in producing the book Portraits of a Nation: History of Ancient India. The result is a valuable book not only for teaching history but one that can serve as a possible guide for future writers. In addition to giving the facts of history as can best be reconstructed the author provides details of methodology used and historiography.
A book along these lines should have been—and could have been—written fifty years ago but was not. The reasons are several, but two need to be highlighted because they have persisted. First, there was the Nehruvian feudal establishment; and pandering to his tastes and prejudices became the route to recognition and career success. This meant that the views advanced in Jawaharlal Nehru’s amateurish and entirely Eurocentric work Discovery of India became entrenched in history books as the ‘authorized’ view. To go with this, a whole generation of historians beginning with Romila Thapar and R.S. Sharma were trained by a single British professor— A.L. Basham of the School of Oriental Studies in London. Basham was more a religious scholar than a historian or archaeologists and his legacy has persisted.
It is unhealthy for any institution to be so in-bred in its research and faculty, with too many people trained to think the same way. A prime example is the Center for Historical Studies at the Jawaharlal Nehru University in New Delhi. Until recently it was dominated by the Marxist historian (and Basham student) Romila Thapar and a clique around her. A singular feature of ‘scholars’ belonging to this clique is their ignorance of Indian languages, especially Sanskrit. This is true of Thapar also though it has not stopped her from writing extensively about Vedic India! As a result they are totally dependent on English translations made by colonial scholars. This has resulted in what Sri Aurobindo called their “lack of sturdy independence” and “excessive deference towards European scholarship.”
What this clique has produced is copycat scholarship, with status tied to how closely they follow their erstwhile European masters. This makes them oppose any revisions to Eurocentric models like the Aryan invasion theory and the Aryan-Dravidian myth. In fact, the strongest defenders today of these discredited notions are not Europeans anymore but their Indian followers. Harappans as Dravidians and victims of the Aryan invasion is propagated not by European scholars but Dravidian politicians like Karunanidhi. (One exception is Asko Parpola who was paid a generous reward by Karunanidhi for endorsing the DMK ideology built on the Aryan-Dravidian divide.)
This sheds light on another aspect of the post-Independence history establishment, especially of the JNU-AMU school. (AMU stands for the Aligarh Muslim University.) It is known more for political activism than any contributions to scholarship. Underlying their political posturing is the denial of everything good about India. Vedas and Sanskrit were brought by invading Aryans; Indian astronomy is of Greek origin; Muslim invaders including Babar never destroyed any Hindu temples—you get the drift.
Much of this can be explained by the fact that this arrogance and posturing is a façade to cover up their deficiency in scholarship and inferiority complex. Being ignorant of both science and the primary sources (in Sanskrit)— they feel their best defense lies in denial and attack. This came to the fore when this writer and the late Natwar Jha in 2000 proposed a solution to the Harappan script puzzle by linking its language to Vedic Sanskrit by presenting readings of a large number of inscriptions. This of course demolishes the Aryan-Dravidian myth. The reaction of JNU-AMU clique was not any attempt at refutation, but a personal attack in the Communist magazine Frontline. Even here, Romila Thapar, lacking the self-confidence to deal with our work (based on Vedic Sanskrit), went to the Hindu-baiter Michael Witzel of Harvard to mount the attack. (The recent attack on Subramanian Swamy by Witzel and his colleague Diana Eck is not without precedent.)
In pursuit of their goals, this clique has not hesitated to deny and even falsify evidence. A prime example that had tragic consequences was its denial and falsification of evidence for the existence of a prior temple and its destruction beneath the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya. This was noted by the judge who severely criticized these scholars for their role. In its judgment on the long-standing Ram Janmabhoomi dispute, the Allahabad High Court flayed the role played by several witnesses including Thapar’s protégé Shereen Ratnagar. She was forced to admit under oath that she had no field experience in archeological excavations in India. Still their hostility bordering on hatred towards their ancestral land and culture is hard to comprehend. They owe everything to India; unlike Indian scientists and professionals, they would be nonentities in the West. Perhaps Shakespeare said it best when Julius Caesar was murdered by his erstwhile followers: “What private griefs these men have, alas, I know not.”
Be as it may, Smt Kamlesh Kapur, the author of Portraits of a Nation: History of Ancient India suffers from no such deficiencies or ignorance of primary sources and science that need to be concealed behind a façade. She displays a refreshingly original approach to the sources. For example, she observes that the Vedas, the Rig Veda in particular has been the most faithfully preserved text of the ancient world and hence has suffered the least in terms of interpolations. As a result, we must treat the Vedic records— names, dynasties, astronomical statements, etc as the most reliable and accorded the highest priority.
This is a valuable insight: it means that statements that seemingly violate our beliefs (like Aryans as nomadic invaders) cannot be dismissed. For example, if the Rig Veda describes a maritime society of rivers, oceans and ships as David Frawley pointed out more than 20 years ago, we cannot ignore it and insist that it was nomadic pastoral. Also to be admired is the author’s bold multidisciplinary approach to history by looking at natural history, genetics, and archaeo-astronomy in addition to the usual sources like archaeology and literary records. In fact, some of this material appears for the first time in a textbook (as opposed to articles and research monographs by Oppenheimer, Cavalli-Sforza and this writer).
In the process, the author succeeds in building a sound foundation in historiography not only for her book but for all future students of Indian history. A particular strength of the book is that its author is no ivory tower academic writing to please her peers but an educationist of great experience who has worked with students and teachers for many years. She has seen the problems and by taking the bull by the horns, produced a book that is at once up to date and pedagogically sound. It is an invaluable source for teaching about ancient India that no school or library should be without.
To appreciate the value of Smt Kamlesh Kapur’s work it helps to have some idea of the magnitude of the distortion—nay perversion—inflicted on generations of innocent young minds by self-serving academics in the name of history. It is a vast subject, but here is a brief summary. It is a case study in how not to teach history—or any subject for that matter.
Historians or ‘distortians’?
While most educated Indians now have at least an idea that their history has been distorted, few know the lengths to which ‘scholars’—European and Indian—have gone to preserve and perpetuate the Aryan myth. Given the Aryans’ importance to their worldview, it is extraordinary that after two hundred years of voluminous outpourings, these scholars are still unable to identify them. Originally they were claimed to be a race related to Europeans but science has discredited it. After the defeat of Nazi Germany, scholars avoid overtly racial arguments but the basic idea of an invasion by Europeans bringing civilization to India is retained even if they acknowledge that ancient Indian records know nothing of any such invasion. All we have are repeated assertions of their central dogma. As expressed by the late Murray Emeneau, a leading linguist:
“At some time in the second millennium B.C., probably comparatively early in the millennium, a band or bands of speakers of an Indo-European language, later to be called Sanskrit, entered India over the northwest passes. This is our linguistic doctrine which has been held now for more than a century and a half. There seems to be no reason to distrust the arguments for it, in spite of the traditional Hindu ignorance of any such invasion.”
This is typical of the field, with arguments closer to theology than to science. In short Emeneau and his ilk are telling us: “Evidence be damned, we know Aryans invaded India and brought the Vedas.” Aryans are needed because there can be no Aryan invasion without the Aryans. It is a case of the tail wagging the dog, but theology cannot exist without such ‘logic’. Scientists, however, had long ago dismissed the idea of the Aryan race. As far back as 1939, Sir Julian Huxley, one of the great biologists of the twentieth century had observed:
“In England and America the phrase ‘Aryan race’ has quite ceased to be used by writers with scientific knowledge, though it appears occasionally in political and propagandist literature…. In Germany, the idea of the ‘Aryan race’ received no more scientific support than in England. Nevertheless, it found able and very persistent literary advocates who made it appear very flattering to local vanity. It therefore steadily spread, fostered by special conditions.”
These ‘special conditions’ were the rise of Nazism in Germany and British imperial interests in India. Its perversion in Germany leading eventually to the Nazi horrors is well known. The fact that the British turned it into a political tool to make their rule acceptable to Indians is not generally known. A recent BBC report acknowledged as much (October 6, 2005):
“It [Aryan invasion theory] gave a historical precedent to justify the role and status of the British Raj, who could argue that they were transforming India for the better in the same way that the Aryans had done thousands of years earlier.”
That is to say, the British presented themselves as ‘new and improved Aryans’ that were in India only to complete the work left undone by their ancestors in the hoary past. This is how the British Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin put it in the House of Commons in 1929:
“Now, after ages, …the two branches of the great Aryan ancestry [Indians and the British] have again been brought together by Providence… By establishing British rule in India, God said to the British, “I have brought you and the Indians together after a long separation. …it is your duty to raise them to their own level as quickly as possible …brothers as you are…”
Preposterous as it sounds today, it was a ploy to create Indian elite loyal to the British rulers by flattering them as long lost brothers, now being uplifted from their degraded state. The ploy was so successful that English educated Indians continue to cling to this fiction long after the British themselves admitted to the fraud. While the British can live without their creation, their followers in the Indian history establishment cannot do without it. Their identity no less than their politics is bound up with it.
All this is a matter of record. Our historians don’t have to learn Sanskrit or study the Vedas to understand it. Yet they are curiously reluctant to expose such passages that bring their whole history into discredit. They loudly denounce the Nazi misuse of Aryan myth, but carefully avoid mentioning its British version. Worse, they continue to perpetuate it by resorting to various subterfuges. Thomas Trautman, the author of Aryans and British India makes no mention of these even while acknowledging the British effort to create an Indian identity through a concocted Aryan kinship. In his recent (2011) book India: Brief history of a civilization, he falls back on the Aryan migration (or invasion) with Sanskrit as a foreign import. He resorts to spurious arguments like the ‘rare’ depiction of the Aryan horse in Harappan archaeology to preserve the Vedic-Aryan, Dravidian-Harappa divide. (Why? Did those horses speak Sanskrit?)
When I presented some of this material at a workshop in the U.K., a member of the audience—not a historian—joked that these people who engaged in distortion on such a monumental scale should be called ‘distortians’ rather than historians. Historians in the audience did not find it funny.
The good news is that the Indian public is becoming wise to their deceptions and distortions though they continue to enjoy political patronage in India— like Porpola serving Karunanidhi and his party. In the U.S., these ‘distortian’ scholars are in a state of near panic and running to wealthy Indians for money with cries of “Sanskrit in danger if you don’t fund us.” Our response should be: “Sanskrit thrived for thousands of years long before any of you Indologists appeared on the planet. Vyasa, Valmiki, Bhasa, Kalidasa nor any of the great figures in the Sanskrit pantheon needed to go to you distortians or your blighted departments.”
Let them die a natural death. Support instead efforts like those by that dedicated lady Kamlesh Kapur who have no axes to grind. We need many more such people and many more such books.