history...

[Guest guest]

> Title : A New Look at our History

> Author : P M Kamath

> Publication : University News

> Date : June 17, 1996

>

>

> Being a Professor of Politics specialising in

> International Relations, particularly on National

> Security issues, it has been really difficult for me to

> read books outside my field. But students of Political

> Science cannot escape reading historical Writings. As

> the cliche goes, history is past politics and politics is

> the future history. In the field of history in general,

> I read in the last year, the first volume edited by S.D.

> Kulkarni entitled Beginnings of Life, Culture and History

> (Bombay: Shri Bhagavan Vedavyasa Ithihasa Samshodhana

> Mandira, 1988). Kulkarni is a retired administrator,

> belonging to Maharashtra State Service who had the

> distinction in Sanskrit literature and is committed to

> write 18 Volumes on Indian History and Culture. This

> book has left lasting impressions on me regarding Indian

> past politics and how British - as the last invaders of

> India - tried to distort Indian history.

>

> The book is an intensive investigation into the origin of

> life, the theory of evolution and the pragmatic study of

> Vedas as a source of ancient world civilization. The

> book also discusses the problem Of Indian chronology

> based on historical evidence. Many Western scholars

> according to this book were basically motivated, in

> discussing ancient Indian history to belittle Indian

> culture and civilization. Since the Biblical age did not

> extend beyond 4000 BC how can a vanquished people like

> Indians could claim to possess a hoary past? Archbishop

> of Ireland decreed in 1664 that creation took place at 9

> a.m. on 23-10-4004 BC and one who will say anything else

> about it will be considered a heretic. "From this notion

> of theirs, they further smugly believed that Indians had

> no sense of history and so their claim to a hoary

> antiquity for their history was untenable. Of late this

> attitude of the Westerners is changing perceptibly. But

> the damage has been done." (p. 283)

>

> Thus influenced by a cultural bias Western scholars have

> tried to place ancient Indian history at a date as recent

> as possible. In this regard the book takes views of many

> Western scholars and Indologists who have taken this line

> of argument, in particular, Max Muller. Max Muller

> placed earliest Veda around 1200 BC and latest at 600

> BC.

> As a matter of fact, the composition of Vedas goes back

> according to this work to 8000 BC though it was reduced

> to written form later. Kulkarni based on Rgveda hymns

> arrives the date of Vedas as 20,000 BC. Though Bal

> Gangadhar Tilak too had arrived at the same date, he had

> rejected It as "too extravagant" (p. 290). Vedas

> constitute the best of the knowledge then known to

> Indians. It is an account of history, culture, science

> of the times. It is to be noted that Rgveda says that

> "Indra made the Earth to revolve around sun" (Yat bhumin

> Viavartayat). Though centuries later European scholars

> still argued it otherway round.

>

>

> Another important issue discussed in this book is an

> artificial division created between Aryans and Dravidians

> by the Western Indologists. Actually Kulkarni argues

> that 'Aryan' as such is not a race. The term 'Arya'

> means civilised and does not appear in any source other

> than the Vedas.

>

> The book attributes it, with evidence, to the British

> imperialistic policy of 'divide and rule'. It was easy,

> for India is a nation of many castes, customs, languages

> and religious affiliations. At a meeting of Royal

> Asiatic Society held on 9 April, 1866 with

> Rt.

> Honourable Viscount Strangford in the Chair, the point

> for discussion was "the progress of the successive waves

> of Aryan immigration from the Oxus into the province of

> Ariyania and Hindukush and downward course of the

> pastoral races from their first entry into the Punjab and

> the associated crude chants of the vedic hyms.........

>

> The Imperialists as Kulkarni argues "wanted to din into

> the ears of the subjugated Indians that the Indians were

> always conquered by foreigners..... Then they spread the

> canard that these Dravidians who peopled India from north

> to south, were conquered by the Aryan barbarians some

> time in 1500 BC.... These latter day Indians were later

> on invaded b the Sakas, Huns and Greeks. So the story of

> India and Indians as pictured is one of constant defeat

> at the hands of foreigners and invading tribes." (p. 298)

>

> This theory of Aryans versus Dravidians was further

> developed by the Christian missionaries from R. Caldwell

> to Heras. The discovery of Indus Valley Civilization

> further helped these Indologists to confirm invasion

> theory and place the date of Indus valley civilization

> to be around 3000 BC. In this they totally suppressed

> the fact that Rgvedic people themselves had declared that

> they are the civilizers of the world - Krnvanto

> Visvamaryam after the glacial epoch and there are no such

> distinctive races as Aryans or Dravidians. As a result

> of this untenable theory, a deep rooted schism developed

> between Tamils of the South and rest of Indians.

>

> Another issue the book highlights is the fact that

> Indians did possess a sense of history. Unfortunately,

> the view that Indians lack a sense of history, seems to

> have been accepted by many of Indian scholars too. In my

> opinion it is in general an accepted fact of life in

> India that we recognise our own scholarship if it is

> first recognised by the foreigners. This slavish

> mentality is the result of long colonial background of

> Indian pysche arising from a deference to the white man

> and our own English education. Be that as it may, "the

> fact is, far from lacking the sense of history ancient

> Indians have produced innumerable works which are full of

> historical information".

>

> But with some exceptions, Western scholars with their

> belief in Biblical knowledge. firmly thought that when

> their own sacred book is of recent origin, of hardly 1000

> BC, how could others have history older than

> theirs?

> Thus, they discarded Puranas, epics as mythological

> records and not historical documents. On the other hand,

> Puranas' for instance, form a "record of history of

> primary creation, secondary creation, the geneologies of

> Kings and reigns of different kings. They also record

> the history of ancient dynasties."

>

>

> As a student of international relations 1 see today how

> the European nation states, which came 'into being as a

> result of the treaty of Westphalia in 1648, have

> struggled to make war more humane. The efforts still

> continue. But Bharata War fought in 6000 BC the record

> of which is Mahabharata brings out clearly well

> established rules governing warfare. Thus for instance,

> it is recorded very clearly that war was fought on

> alternate days and wars were not fought during the night

> time which is the time for rest. What more example do we

> need to know that ancient Indians had humanised war much

> before the Europeans struggled to think in that

> direction?

>

> That the Western Indologists were interested in

> denigrading Indian history, culture and civilization

> needs no further evidence. Yet, some more examples can

> be culled out from the book., Thus for instance, it

> mentions about Max Muller, who did a great work of making

> Indian Sanskrit works available to Western

> scholars.

> But was it without a motive? This book tells us with

> evidence that it was with a motive to promote

> christianity in India. In a letter to his wife Max

> Muller wrote: "I hope 1 shall finish that work and 1 feel

> convinced, though 1 shall not live to see it, yet, this

> edition of mine and the translation of the Veda, will

> hereafter tell to a great extent on the fate of India and

> on the growth of millions of souls in that country. It

> is the root of their religion and to show them what the

> root is, I feel sure, is the only way of uprooting all

> that sprung from it during the last 3000 years"(Pp. 323-

> 4).

>

> Subsequently. he also wrote to Secretary of State for

> India in December 1866. "The ancient Indian religion of

> India is doomed and if christianity does not step in

> whose fault will it be?" He kept this urge to turn India

> into a christian state alive. He later wrote that India

> has been conquered once "but India must be conquered

> again, and the second conquest should be by education."

> This was achieved partially by Macaulay when he

> introduced English education.

>

> Successive Indian scholars have continued this spirit of

> belittling ancient Indian achievements planted by Western

> Indologists. For instance, though patriotic and highly

> nationalistic, Rajaram Mohun Roy thought Sanskrit

> language extremely difficult, while, Ishwarchandra

> Vidyasagar said: "That the Vedanta and Sankhya are false

> systems of Philosophy is no more a matter of dispute." A

> large number of Indian intellectuals whose patriotic

> nationalism could not be doubted, have however, blindly

> followed the lead given to them by the Western scholars,

> uncritically. This attitude on their part helped to

> perpetuate inaccuracies and deliberate distortions and to

> treat ancient Indian History and culture as of no

> consequence. R.C. Dutta who wrote Hitory of Civilisation

> of Ancient India, for instance, says in his preface: "I

> have freely quoted from them (the translations and other

> works) and 1 have seldom thought it necessary to

> consult."

>

> I feel that it is high time that Indian scholars give a

> serious thought to consider and weed out distortions

> introduced in the study of Ancient Indian History and

>

> Culture and revise their own understanding of Indian

> history, international relations science, etc in an

> objective manner without wearing a Western mask. It is

> worth recalling what Swami Vivekananda said : "I will

> tell you something for your guidance in life. Everything

> that comes from India take it as true until you find

> cogent reasons for disbelieving it. Everything that

> comes from Europe take as.. false until you find cogent

> reasons for believing it."

>

>

> ____________________

> To , write to hinduring-

>

> Start Your Own FREE Email List at http://www.listbot.com/links/joinlb