[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Article : A new look at out History
ashok wrote:
>
> July 15, 1996
>
> 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,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This organization is abbreviated as BHISHMA, a rather nice acronym. They
have published quite a few books on Indian history, but I am afraid they
are all not very thoroughly researched. Shri Kulkarni may be right about
the motives of Western scholars who wrote India's history, but in the
absence of scholarly objectivity on his own part, he sadly loses
credibility. There is no point in swinging the pendulum to the other
extreme, when what historians should be interested in is the equilibrium
of truth.
> 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
One of these 18 volumes is on Adi Sankara. If I am allowed to assume
what Shri Kulkarni says about his date and history, I should think that
the entire volume is not worth much. Shri Kulkarni, and Prof. Kamath
must read current research on Adi Sankara's date, done by philosophers
who are genuinely interested in Advaita Vedanta, and who have no
ulterior motives. Sadly, some Indians, who claim to be advaita scholars,
and publish books from various Universities, have their own vested
interests, which show in their introductions to their books. A
significant example is Dr. N. Veezhinathan of the Radhakrishnan
Institute for Advanced Study in Philosophy, attached to the University
of Madras. Instead of relying on such people, we would be much better
off reading the works of Agehananda Bharati, Swami Tapasyananda, Swami
Swahananda and Sengku Mayeda, to see what they have to say about
Sankara's date and history.
It may be very comforting to some, to date Adi Sankara to the 5th
century BC, but that is just not the case. The best preserved traditions
about Sankara put him in the 7th-8th centuries AD. It is folly to treat
all sorts of fanciful claims that are currently floating about as equal
to this well-preserved tradition. In reality, it does not matter when
Sankara lived. Putting him before Christ is not going to enhance his
greatness. Similarly, it does not matter when the R.gveda was first
transmitted. From the Hindu point of view, such talk of dates is
pointless, as the Vedas are ageless. It is time we Indians stopped
whining about our colonial heritage, and looked towards the future. Let
the dead past bury its dead.
> 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.
Forget about the Archbishop of Ireland. Does anyone seriously think that
the astronomical time-scales given in our Puranas are historically
valid? According to these kinds of notions, human beings lived on earth
simultaneously with dinosaurs, and even before, when the atmosphere on
earth could not have supported life. The notions of the Puranas are
meant for poetic effect. To attach serious historical validity to them
is being extremely short-sighted.
Before somebody out there accuses me of having been brainwashed into
thinking according to the "Western" ways, let me assure you, it is not
so. I will be the first to recognize the problems with the written
history of India, as it is today. However, that does not mean that such
extreme revisionism is called for. There has to be a limit to the extent
of human credulity. Remember, just as Shri Kulkarni is finding fault
with Max Mueller and others for their motives, so also somebody else is
equally at liberty to find fault with the motives of revisionist
historians.
>
> 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.
>
Whether it is racial or not, the fact remains that Arya and Dravida were
two separate groups of people. Ancient Tamil sources prove beyond any
possibility of doubt that Arya essentially meant "northerner, who
follows the Vedas," while Dravida referred to the peoples living in the
peninsula of India. The southerners formed their own separate linguistic
and political groups, with no reference to the north. Read K. A.
Nilakanta Sastri and P. T. Srinivasa Aiyangar for proper historical
details.
Long before the British came into India, the difference between Arya and
Dravida was noticed by the Indians themselves. The British just used the
distinction to their own political advantage. Just as today's politicans
play the caste and religion card to get voted. It is the way of the
ruler/conqueror, that he divides the ruled/conquered and sets them
against one another, so that his own kursi is safe. We have only
ourselves to blame, for having fallen prey to this age-old tactic.
Forget about people like Fr. Heras. They have been discredited in their
own countries. They don't matter any more.
>
> 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".
>
This I agree with. Indians do have their own sense of history, but we
also have an exaggerated sense of our own antiquity. We don't hesitate
to coin a colorful legend, if it suits our immediate purposes, without
any regard to chronological accuracy. If by "sense of history," Shri
Kulkarni is talking of things like the rock-edicts of Asoka, the
inscriptions of kings like Samudragupta, Kharavela, Pulakesin and
Mahendravarman, fine, we do have a sense of history. On the other hand,
if by "sense of history" he is talking of the various Puranas which
contradict one another in their historical details, he is highly
mistaken.
> 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?
You will be surprised to know how many of the Westerners really believed
in the so-called Biblical chronology.
> 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."
>
Sorry, the Puranas are more mythology than history. That is why the
Brahmanas of old classified Purana separately from Itihasa. Itihasa
means "thus it happened" and can be admitted as historical, but not so
with the Puranas, as a class.
> 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?
>
Agreed, but remember that the ancient Indian authorities will themselves
dispute the date given here for the Bharata war. According to famous
astronomers like Aryabhatta, the date of the Bharata war is 3102 BC.
They would dispute the 6000 BC date very firmly. Importantly, they also
lived ages before the British set foot on Indian soil. Forget about
proving the Western historians wrong. Prove that Aryabhatta is wrong in
his date first. Then everybody can take this date seriously. Note that
the learned Jyotishis who prepare panchangs till today, using
Aryabhatta's formulae and other similar old astronomical methods,
couldn't care less about the so-called Western dates. But they will go
by Aryabhatta's date for the Bharata war, not Shri Kulkarni's.
> 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."
The same Swami Vivekananda once got very angry with some Indian pundits,
and scolded them very severely for "text-torturing and
text-manipulating." Remember that these same "texts" that have been
tortured and manipulated form the basis for the revised dates. Swami
Vivekananda was concerned with spiritual truths, not historical ones.
Those who are highly spiritual often have no use for history. Those who
get bogged down in the nitty-gritties of history find it very hard to be
spiritual. So there is no necessary correlation between India's
"spirituality" and India's history.
S. Vidyasankar
