[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
ARTICLE : A New Look at Our History
-
To: soc-religion-hindu@uunet.uu.net
-
Subject: ARTICLE : A New Look at Our History
-
From: Prasad Gokhale <f0g1@unb.ca>
-
Date: Sun, 11 Aug 1996 14:58:46 -0300
-
In-Reply-To: <ghenDvp39v.5Hw@netcom.com>
-
Newsgroups: soc.religion.hindu
-
Organization: University of New Brunswick
-
References: <ghenDvp39v.5Hw@netcom.com>
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."
----------------
