Textbook Controversies: A Rejoinder to Diganta

Romila Thapar engages in caste-baiting, because she hopes that by hitching her wagon to it, she can ride to fame and fortune.

Diganta is probably hoping for the same kind of thing. As we know, here on DesiLeftists.com anybody can put up their crackpot theories and proclaim their own eminence in doing so.

Leftists, pseudosickularists and Macaulay's kids allege that a BJP government rewriting history is "politicisation of history" or "saffronisation of history." However, most of our school history text books are already highly politicized because almost all of them are written from a Marxist point of view. Everything is sought to be explained in terms of "class struggle."

And hey, it's not just the BJP which "rewrites" history. The Communists are not far behind! http://atlantean.wordpress.com/2007/01/28/and-now-cpim-wants-to-rewrite-indian-history/

As for the Islamic Invasion of India, every fuckin' Indian has a RIGHT to know what happened in his land before! This includes what happened during the Islamic period. No compromise. That it is going to cause communal disturbances is not enough reason to keep whitewashing the facts.

I do not know Romila Thapar, but your notes regarding her appear highly inflammatory. You (and commenters) need to provide supporting links to show what you call "marxist bias" rather than throwing words around.

For the record, I went back and read Mr. Digant's original write-up and do not see it in the same light as you do here. For example, that write-up criticizes the politicization of history all over the world and gives examples of the same from around the world. This phenomenon is or ought to be of concern to everyone who cares about history - whether it happens in India or elsewhere.

BJ, it was glaringly obvious that Diganta was making a very slanted commentary that was specifically singling out certain groups for slander, while ignoring the wider record.

BJ, your comments are more of a reflection upon you than upon the subject you're commenting on.

Where is the link I asked for in #3. Short of supporting evidence, I must stand by what I said there.

Saffronist Sandeep is dead wrong as usual.
Sandeep and others have a hinduvtawadi bias.He is not objective himself.Instead of citing propaganda laden 'voice of dharma' sites,can he point out papers in peer reviewed academic journals (both Indian and foreign) to support his stance ?
He accuses Diganta of being onesided is he himself objective ?
Which book written by Romila thapar glorifies Aurangzeb as a forerunner of secularism ?
Can he please provide details of this book ?
Who was Ghazni muhammad ?
Is he talking about Mahmud of Ghazni or taking about Shahabuddin Muhammad Ghauri ?
In his manichean worldview 'dirty meleccha muslim invaders' attacked the pure aryavarti paradise because they were self proclaimed iconoclasts hating idol worship.

Marxists are sometimes guilty of seeing the world entirely through materialist lens but this does not discount the strong economic motivations of many of the historical actors.

BJ,

"Inflammatory words?" I hope you're serious because I've specifically pointed to Arun Shourie's book that completely exposes the likes of Romila Thapar. I wrote this post based partly on the strength of that book. Please read that book and THEN let me know if you disagree.

>>..that write-up criticizes the politicization of history all over the world and gives examples of the same from around the world.
And I urge you to FULLY read my post. If that's difficult, here's what I wrote at the beginning of my post:
I'm not knowledgeable enough about textbook controversies around the world.

The controversy around Indian history textbooks however, is an area I have observed closely for more than five years.
As for links, I've given ample amount of links throughout my post. Please do your homework before commenting.

Null,
I remember you from my post on Hindu Holocaust. Welcome back, and please try harder than just calling me "saffronist." Don't reinforce the fact that you have no crediblity in the area of debating on issues as opposed to labelling me.

For example, books written by Romila Thapar and company glorify Aurangzeb as a forerunner of modern secularism; -
But how is it related to textbooks? Which state/country has adopted this(Romila Thapar's book) as their textbook?

I find it hard to accept Diganta's credentials as a researcher in the Shankaramurthy debate
- I did not pass any comments on this. I found Historians on both sides of the argument.

The sad fact of life is that governments all over the world attempt to rewrite textbooks; which is what happens if you politicise everything.
- I think that was my theme as well. How do you disagree to agree? I think I have covered India, Pakistan, Japan, Saudi, Malaysia and many more countries. In India, I took a few examples those came to my notice. If you can add some more to it, I'd accept it happily.

No serious scholar will still try to hold on to Aryan Invasion, Aryanism, etc except "historians" like Romila Thapar.
- Please read the wikipedia page dedicated to this. It is a 'genetically' argued fact that Aryans came from outside. Here, you missed the point once more. If it's not an established fact then why should we not study 'both' sides of the story?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetics_and_Archaeogenetics_of_South_Asia

Diganta,

Since you talk about the Wikipedia page, I urge you to follow this link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan_Invasion_Theory_%28history_and_controversies%29#Later_developments

I also encourage you to read up on the Out Of India Theory, the alternative to the Aryan Invasion Theory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out_of_india_theory

You say:

If it's not an established fact then why should we not study 'both' sides of the story?

Absolutely. Our school textbooks carry only the AIT. The OIT should also be taught. The students should be offered both sides of the debate. If a BJP govt tries to include the OIT in our textbooks alongside the AIT, I have absolutely no problem with it because it shall give a different perspective to students.

In your article, you write:

A Pathfinder article tries to show how the BJP Govt tried to manipulate the history textbooks for their political gain. It went to the extent of denying a genetically and historically accepted fact that Aryans came to India from outside.

Clearly, this "fact" is not accepted by all and it includes not just BJP thugs or Hindutvawadis, or to use some of the favourites at DC, "saffronistas", "saffronazis" etc. It includes eminent archaelogists, anthropologists and linguists. The Aryan Invasion Theory is not a closed box. In fact, ever since the discovery of the Indus Valley Civilization in the 1920s, the Aryan Invasion Theory stands seriously challenged. Some have even gone to the extent of saying that the Aryan Invasion Theory is not a theory but a mere hypothesis because a lot of questions remain unanswered.

For example, you frequently cite "genetic evidence" in support of an Aryan invasion into India around the time of 1800 BCE. But please remember that India has always faced a steady migration from Central Asia into northern India much before 1800 BCE. Do appreciate the fact that the predominant racial group of northern India is Caucasoid and the Caucasoid racial group has its origin in the Caucasus (Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan.) This migration has been taking place since a very long time... so long that one can clearly see the differences in the skin colour (it became darker due to higher levels of melanin in the skin due to the much warmer climate) between the Caucasoid population in northern India and that in the Caucasus. These changes are quite pronounced and are not possible in the space of a few thousand years (for example, from 1800 BCE to present.) The genetic evidence proves that this sort of migration indeed occured BUT... it does not conclusively prove the migration of an ETHNIC group called the "Indo Aryans" into India AT AROUND 1800 BCE. The migration of a race of people is not the same as the migration of a culture or a language or a religion. Just because most Americans are Christian doesnt mean they all came from West Asia.

At attempt to include the OIT alongside the AIT in our school textbooks need not be politically motivated. In fact, one can argue that the refusal to include OIT itself is politically motivated. The inclusion of the OIT alongside AIT may serve to neutralize the political bias that has been brought into our textbooks by their Marxist authors.

What could be the 'political' reason for refusal to include OIT? Why Marxists would exclude OIT? Where exactly did it come to hinder marxist ideology?

Further, how does this "Out of India" theory of linguistics, conforms to the "Out of Africa" and "Mitochondrial Eve" theories of Genetics?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A703199

The timings of Aryan invasion is indeed disputed, there are no doubts on that.

>>For example, books written by Romila Thapar and company glorify Aurangzeb as a forerunner of modern secularism; -
But how is it related to textbooks? Which state/country has adopted this(Romila Thapar's book) as their textbook?
Diganta, isn't the link obvious? The whitewashing of Aurangzeb (patently inaccurate) was included in history textbooks written by Thapar and prescribed for primary/middle school students by the NCERT. Isn't it related to textbooks?

>>I find it hard to accept Diganta's credentials as a researcher in the Shankaramurthy debate
>>- I did not pass any comments on this. I found Historians on both sides of the argument.
You didn't pass any comments, all right. But you omitted mentioning the other side of the argument--namely, SL Bhyrappa's rejoinder, which made me question your credentials as a researcher.

>>How do you disagree to agree?
That's not my point, please do not try to sidetrack the debate. I had an issue with your one-sided approach of reporting the textbook controversy in the Indian context. I'm surprised that despite having mountains of evidence against Thapar and company, you choose to ignore them/not bring them to the table.

As for the AIT, here's a simpler way of understanding it, instead of going the genetics route. If we accept the AIT/AMT as true, we land up with what is known as Frawley's paradox, explained as follows: The Harappans of the Indus Valley have left profuse archaeological records over a vast region - from the borders of Iran and beyond Afghanistan to eastern UP and Tapti valley, and must have supported over 30 million people and believed to be living an advanced civilization. And yet these people have left absolutely no literary records. Sounds incredible! The Vedic Aryans and their successors on the other hand have left us a literature that is probably the largest and most profound in the world. But according to the AIT there is absolutely no archaeological record that they ever existed. Either on the Indian soil or outside its boundaries. So we have concrete history and archeology of a vast civilization of 'Dravidians' lasting thousands of years that left no literature, and a huge literature by the Vedic Aryans who left no history and no archaeological records. The situation gets more absurd when we consider that there is profuse archaeological and literary records indicating a substantial movement of Indian Aryans out of India into Iran and West Asia around 2000 BC.

>>What could be the 'political' reason for refusal to include OIT? Why Marxists would exclude OIT? Where exactly did it come to hinder marxist ideology?
Diganta, you seriously need to read a lot. If AIT is accepted as true, in one shot, it credits all achievements of ancient India to outsiders. Which is why Marxists glorify Islamic invaders so the time will eventually be ripe for a Communist country--China for example--to take over India.

Here's a suggestion: please follow ALL the links in my post and then carry this debate forward.

the time will eventually be ripe for a Communist country--China for example--to take over India. - Yawn. I haven't heard of a single marxist that they want that. AIT was established by Max Muller who had no relationship with Marxism and Indian Marxists.

it credits all achievements of ancient India to outsiders. - Again, what matters if outsiders are building great civilizations?

On Romila Thapar's front, I aceept your point. If you want to add this to my blog, I would welcome you.

In Harappan Civilization course, you missed the other side of the coin. If Harappan people has developed the Indus Valley Civilization, then why would they abandon the bigger cities they have already made? The other difference was the lack of use of iron in Indus Valley Civilization(Bronze age), that was predominant in Aryan civilization. Moreover, there are no urban plannings found in Aryan cities like those of Harappa and Mahenjodaro.

Bizarrely sandeep has not addressed any of my points instead continues to label others.
So apparently in his world view only the knickerwallahs are 'patriots' while the rest are forever plotting to hand over poor 'bharat mata' to outsiders .

I am yet to find any reference from Romila Thapar where "Aurangzeb as a forerunner of modern secularism" is expressed.
http://www.rediff.com/news/1999/feb/04thapar.htm

I found her interview very useful, even if "some of her view"s are wrong. The attitude that she's shown is the correct one I guess. She has aligned the books with the most of Western scholars. She had no political intention in writing them, not at all China taking over India :).

Diganta,

>>Again, what matters if outsiders are building great civilizations?
I can simply bow before your superior reasoning faculties.

Null,
>>Bizarrely sandeep has not addressed any of my points ...
Your what? points? Please name one.

read #6 again carefully :
* which book by romila thapar says aurangzeb was the forerunner was modern secularism ?
* who is muhammad ghazni
* Are u objective or do you have an ideological agenda of your own ?
* Please refer to peer reviewed academic journals and books (both indian and foreign) instead of crude polemical tracts ?

Null,

Two points: notice that I didn't single out Romila Thapar, but merely called her one of the chief/leading Marxist "historians." As for Thapar's assertion on Aurangzeb, here it is from Penguin's "History of India:"
"Aurangzeb's supposed intolerance is little more than a hostile legend based on isolated acts such as the erection of a mosque on a temple site in Benares."
For a detailed critique of Aurangzeb's secular credentials as exposited by Marxist historians, here goes: http://koenraadelst.voiceofdharma.com/articles/ayodhya/kashivishvanath.html

>>who is muhammad ghazni
I find it hard to argue with people who don't do their homework before debating. But since you ask, I refer to Muhammad Ghaznavid, the demolisher of Somanath temple.

>>Are u objective or do you have an ideological agenda of your own ?
I have an ideological agenda: of truth, and reading history as it happened, and not ïnterpreting" it using a Marxist or any other framework.

>>Please refer to peer reviewed academic journals and books (both indian and foreign) instead of crude polemical tracts ?
This is amazing! When you can't truthfully/objectively refute the articles on Voice of India, you term them "crude polemical tracts."

Although you don't deserve this--by virtue of your name-calling me--I've responded at length in the hope that it'll make you see sense.

And yes, you're still welcome to call me Saffronite Sandeep or whatever other fancy term of abuse you have in your armoury.

He is mehmood of ghazni not muhammad ghazni
so you get your facts right Sandeep

secondly why should we get history from biased sources like voiceofdharma who have a definite ideological hinduvtwa wadi agenda ?
For academic rigour you need to read peer reviewed history journals and books.
You have an ideological agenda of viewing history and the world through a saffron lens which specializes in selectively quoting history .

He is mehmood of ghazni not muhammad ghazni

What! Really?!

thats Mahmud....

anyway null..there is only nut from Ghazni....sandeep's incorrect spelling cannnot CONFUSE you with anybody else....

Well..you saffronites and left wing nuts will keep going on and on forever........and that too debating the past...

How come the right or the left have no opinion about this...............

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/NEWS/India/India_coerced_into_voting_against_Iran/articleshow/1630182.cms

This is NOW, wake up!!!!!

Perhaps Diganta and Sandeep and others need to meet over a cup of coffee to sort this issue out (but please send the bill to Mr. Lamba, not to me) :)

I agree that our attention should be focused on the future and we should not stay mired in the past - which is merely a good resource to learn lessons from.