Dr S.L.Bhyrappa | 8 October 2006 | Vijaya Karnataka, Bangalore
[Editor's note: A statement by the Education Minister, Shri. ShankarMurthy that 'Tippusultan was anti Kannada' was the cause celebre for the ongoing debate which incidentally created an atmosphere for a healthydiscussion. A great thinker and also a well known novelist Dr. S.LBhyrappa has set the platform for the discussions in which notedliterary personalities, dramatists and hundreds of readers participatedenthusiastically. In the midst of the ongoing debate in the matter, Dr.Bhyrappa has written his second article enhancing the scope of the discussions and also throwing light on many confusing thoughts in thestate of the affairs. We hope this will make the discussions meaningfuland also encourage quest for truth.]
I am grateful to Shri. Girish Karnad, Sumatheendra Nadig, Dr. Chidananda Murthy, Dr. Suryanath Kamath, Dr. S. Shettar, Shathavadhani R. Ganeshand others who responded earnestly to my article under the title'Nationalism can never be strengthened by projecting historical lies'which appeared in Vijaya Karnataka dated 24th September 2006 and to all the readers who openly expressed their thoughts and to the Editor ofVijaya Karnataka for providing an opportunity for all, to have an opendiscussion. I am happy to note that Kannada readers are very alert.
To continue the discussions about Mohammed Bin Tugalak and Tippusultanwould be just an attempt to extract the relevant details. We have toanalyse the present political attitude in teaching history. Let me first present the nature of the prevailing political control with my ownexperience. During 1969-70, the Central Government under Smt. IndiraGandhi, with a mission to integrate the nation through education hadestablished a committee under the Chairmanship of G.Parthasarathy, adiplomat and was very close to Nehru-Gandhi family. At that time I was areader in Educational Philosophy at NCERT and I was selected as one ofthe five members of the committee. In the first meeting Mr. Parthasarathy, the Chairman of the committee had explained the purposeof the committee in his diplomatic polite language: "it is our duty notto sow the seeds of thorns in the minds of the growing children which will shape up as barriers for the national integration. Such thorns aremostly seen in the history lessons. Even we can find them occasionallyin the language and social science lessons. We have to weed out suchthorns. We have to include only such thoughts which will inculcate the concept of national integration in the minds of the children. Thiscommittee has this great responsibility on it."
Other four members were nodding their heads respectfully. I said:
"Sir, I am not able to understand your words. Will you please explain with some illustrations?"
"Gazni Mohammed had looted Somnath Temple, Aurangzeb built the mosquesby demolishing the temples in Kashi and Mathura, he collected jizya - isit helpful to build a strong India under the present circumstances by conveying such useless facts, other than generating the hatred in theminds?"
"But are not they the historical truths?"
"Plenty of truths are there. To use these truths discriminately is thewisdom of the history"
The remaining four members simply nodded their heads by saying "yes,yes".
"You gave examples of Kashi and Mathura. Even today every year lakhs of people go to these places from all nooks and corners of the country aspilgrims. They can see very clearly the huge mosques built using thesame walls, pillars and columns of the demolished temples, they can also see a recently built cow shed like structure in a corner, behind themosque, representing their temple. All these pilgrims are distressed towitness such awful structures. They describe the plight of their temples to their relatives after they return home. Whether this can createnational integration? One can hide the history in the school texts. Butcan we hide such facts when these children go on excursions? Theresearchers have listed more than thirty thousand such ruined temples in India. Can we hide them all? . . . . ."
Mr. Parthasarthy interrupted me by asking "you are a professor ofPhilosphy. Please tell us what is the purpose of history?"
"No body can define the purpose of history. We do not know how the things shape up because of the development of science and technology inthe future. Some western thinkers might have called it the philosophy ofhistory. But such thoughts are futile. Our discussion here should be, what is the purpose of teaching history? History is seeking the truthabout our past events, learning about the ancient human lives bystudying the inscriptions, records, literary works, relics, artifactsetc. We should not commit the same blunders that our predecessors committed, we have to imbibe the noble qualities that they have adopted,historical truths help us to learn all these things.. . . ."
"Can we hurt the feelings of the minority? Can we divide the society? Can we sow the seeds of poison . . . ." he stopped me with these questions.
"Sir, the categorization on the lines of majority and minority woulditself result in the division of the society or that would be a strategyto divide the society. This idea of 'seeds of poison' is prejudiced. Why should the minority think that Gazni Mohammed, Aurangzeb are their ownpeople? Mughal kingdom was destroyed by the religious bigotry ofAurangzeb. Mughal kingdom was at its pinnacle because of Akbar's rulesfor religious harmony, can't we teach such lessons to the children without offending the historical truths? Before teaching the lessons tobe learnt from the history, should we not explain the historical truths?These ideals of hiding history are influenced by the politics. This trend will not last long. Whether they are minority or majority, if theeducation does not impart the intellectual power to face the truth andthe resultant emotional maturity then such education is meaningless andalso dangerous." I said.
Parthasarathy agreed. He appreciated my scholarship and ability tothink. During lunch break he called me separately, indicated hiscloseness to me by touching my shoulders, enquired about my native place. He asked me to write a Kannada word, and spoke two sentences inTamil thus emphasized the fact that we are from neighbouring states,speaking the sister languages. Afterwards he said with a winning smile, "your thoughts are correct academically. You write an article aboutthis. But when the government formulates a policy governing the entirenation, it has to combine the interests of all the people. Puritanprinciples do not serve any purpose."
Next day when we met, I struck to my stand strongly. I argued thathistory that is not based on truth is futile and dangerous too.Parthasarathy showed his irritation on his face. I did not budge. The morning session closed without arriving at any conclusion. Parthasarathydid not speak to me again. After a fortnight again we met. The committeewas re-structured, my name was not there, in my place a lecturer inhistory by name Arjun dev with leftist ideas was included in the committee. The revised text books of science and social studiespublished by NCERT and the new lessons that were introduced in thesetexts were written under his guidance. These are the books which wereprescribed as texts in the congress and communist ruled states or they guided the text book writers in these States.
(I am quoting this instance taken from my presidential speech at Alwas Nudisiri, second conference held on October 21,22,23-2005).
NCERT books for XI standard, Ancient India is written by a Marxist historian R.S. Sharma and Medieval India written by another Marxisthistorian Satish Chandra, when reviewed, one can observe that howmembers belonging to this group had a scheme to invade the minds ofgrowing children. According to them Ashoka preached to respect even(stress is mine) Brahmins by advocating the quality of tolerance. He hadbanned the ritual of sacrificing the animals and birds, performance of yagnas were stopped due to this ban, Brahmins lost their share ofdakshina (cash gifts) and their livelihood was affected. After Ashoka,Maurya kingdom was disintegrated and many parts of this kingdom cameunder the rule of Brahmins. How childish it is, to say that a highly influential religion, which had spread all over India and even crossedthe borders to reach foreign shores declined because of dissatisfiedBrahmins who were deprived of their dakshina (cash gifts). Muslimsdemolished the temples to loot the riches and wealth accumulated in these temples- this explanation softens their actions. In some othercontext they may even say the looting may be according to the laws ofShariat which again paints the events as insignificant.
Dr. Ambedkar in the section, the decline and fall of Buddhism (Writingsand Speeches volume III, Government of Maharashtra 1987 pp 229-38) afterexplaining the events like Muslim invaders destroying the universitiesof Nalanda, Vikramasheela, Jagaddala, Odanthapura etc., brutal killingsof the Buddhist monks, escape of Buddhist monks to Nepal, Tibet to savetheir lives says, "the roots of Buddhism were axed. Islam killed theBuddhism by killing priestly class of Buddhism. This the worstcatastrophe suffered by the Buddhism in India."
These Marxists who quote Dr. Ambedkar whenever it is convenient for them to denigrate Hinduism, ignore nicely these words'the decline of Buddhismin India is due to terrifying actions of Muslims'of Dr. Ambedkar, whofought against the caste system in Hinduism throughout his life and at the end embraced Buddhism; this may be it is one of the importantphilosophies of Indian Marxists. R.S. Sharma the author of NCERT textAncient India, New Delhi, 1992 p 112 writes, "Buddha viharas attractedTurkish invaders because of their wealth. They were the special greedy targets for the invaders. Turks killed many Buddhist monks. Despitethese killings, many monks escaped to Nepal and Tibet."
Here the clever Marxists have hidden the fact that Muslims destroyedthese religious places as dictated by Shariat by calling Muslims of Turkey with a tribal name Turkish. At the same time they write thatBuddhism declined during Ashoka's reign because of Brahmins who weredeprived of their dakshina (monetary gifts). One should appreciate theircleverness to hide a truth by creating an untruth.
The English scholars who started writing Indian history on the lines ofEuropean history have introduced us to a good method. They had a cunningidea behind their scholarship. First they established that Indianculture is Vedic culture. The creators of this culture are Aryans whowere outsiders. They established themselves by destroying the localcivilization. All the invaders who came later were outsiders. Muslims came. After them we (English) came. Therefore if we are not natives ofthis country, you are also not natives of this land. Englishstrengthened this argument in the universities, media and also in theminds of the English educated people. Rigveda the so called religious text of Aryans was written when they were outside India. That means thebasic religion of Indians was originated from a foreign land. Thisargument severed the spiritual relationship between India and Indians.English educated Indians were struggling with this alien feeling forabout 100 years. This argument sowed and enraged the feelings of hatredand racial hostility between Aryans who were outsiders and theDravidians the natives of this land. It is easy to create the feelingsof hatred and hostility. But the people who know the human psychologycan understand that it is very difficult to come out of such feelingseven after knowing that the reasons quoted in support of these arguments were proved wrong. Although the research conducted in the later periodsdiscovered many facts which were against the theory that Aryans wereoutsiders, nobody has written a complete history of India from theIndian point of view. Under such circumstances, freedom fighter,follower of Gandhi, famous advocate, the member of Constitution DraftingCommittee, a great scholar, founder of Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan,Kanhiahlal Munshi had planned to write a complete Indian history. He invited an eminent scholar and researcher
R.C. Majumdar to be the editor of this book. Both of them entered into acontract. As per the terms of the contract Munshi should supply all theequipment and finance that is required by Majumdar. But he should neverinterfere in the matters of choosing the historians to write varioussections, and also in the ensuing discussions. Munshi was committed tothis agreement. Majumdar was able to produce and publish 11 volumes of a complete, objective and scholarly book, 'THE HISTORY AND THE CULTURE OFTHE INDIAN PEOPLE' with the cooperation of the scholars specialized inwriting various sections. In the last 15 years nobody has written a book like this singly or jointly. I had read all these volumes long back. Ifone refers the sections of this book to know about any period or thesubject one will find the resource material of all the research happened so far in the matter. The recent research findings should only be addedin the recent editions of this book. I have kept all the 11 volumes inmy collection.
National Book Trust had proposed to translate all these volumes in all the Indian languages. The proposal was sent to ICHR (Indian Council forHistorical Research) because this is a history book. ICHR constituted acommittee comprising of S.Gopal, Tapan Roy Choudhary, Satish Chandra,Romilla Thapar to review this book. In the meantime ICHR was under the full control of Marxists. All these people were strict Marxists. As thepecked this committee had recommended that 'these volumes from BharatiyaVidya Bhavan are not suitable for translation and hence the proposal should be rejected', with this recommendation the proposal died anatural death. Further the committee suggested alternative books for thetranslation into Indian languages. All these books were written byeither these members of the committee or by their other Marxist comrades. Their list included five books of ICHR president R.S. Sharma,3 books of S. Gopal (the son of scholar philosopher S. Radhakrishnan), 3books of Romilla Thapar, 2 books of Bipin Chandra, 2 books of IrfanHabib, 2 books of his father Mohammed Habib, one book of Satish Chandra,books of E.M.S. Namboodri, the senior leader of Communist Party of Indiaand the book of British Rajni Pamdatta (who was controlling Indian communists during the decade of 1940s). But there was not even a singlebook of Lokamanya Tilak, Jadunath Sarkar or R.C. Majumdar!
(One has to refer Arun Shourie's EMINENT HISTORIANS: Their Technology,Their Lime, Their Fraud, ASA 1998 for this information). Various groups hate Arun Shourie for various reasons. Shourie is special, in the sensethat he will investigate thoroughly until he reaches the roots of anysubject which he intends to write. In the book Eminent Historians, Sri Shourie has investigated about these writers and has unearthed thedetails of who had recommended the books for translation and who hasreceived what remuneration how much fees and in what form .)
The influence of Gandhian thoughts had declined in the Congress Party in the last days of Gandhiji. Nehru never followed Gandhian thoughts. Though he had great admiration for the democracy of England, in his heart he had love for the communism of Russia. After he came to power he gradually sidelined other congress leaders. The death of Patel was a boon to him. Rajendra Prasad as a President was only a formal head. Rajaji, Krupalani though they formed their own parties, were not influential enough. Nehru was not innocent though he was under the control of a radical communist like Krishna Menon. He was well known in the international circles because he was one of the leading figures who followed the global non-alignment policy but yet he was disliked by western countries like America as the non alignment policy had the strong support of communist Russia. As a result India suffered a loss. India's loss was not Nehru's loss. He was so much devoted and had a strong faith in communism that his government and the entire Indian Media was chanting the mantra, Hindi-Chini Bhai Bhai as a daily ritual till China forcibly kicked us out of our own land. In the meantime communists (Marxists) had occupied the Indian intellectual world. Nehru had a scheme to divide Hindus and to please the Muslims for his political survival. Nehru adopted the same strategy that British used to continue their regime in this country. Secularism means a word of contempt used to address only Hindus. Secularism means our duty towards Muslims and Christians. Nehru spread the message that minority will never be secular. M.C. (Mohammed Karim) Chagla in his autobiography, 'Roses in December' writes, he was born and brought up in Mumbai. He was a lawyer in the same city, earned a great name as an honest person. Later he retired as the Chief Justice of Mumbai High Court. He wanted to contest for Loksabha. He wrote a letter to Nehru asking for a ticket for one of the constituencies of Mumbai. He was given a ticket for Aurangabad constituency through a letter from Congress high command. He had written a letter in reply to the high command letter, "I was born and I grew up in Mumbai, I am familiar with the people of Mumbai by serving them. Why did you give me ticket for the unfamiliar Aurangabad ?" Nehru's high command answer for this letter was, "Aurangabad is a Muslim majority constituency. You are also a Muslim. So you can contest from that constituency."
I was a boy when India got independence and also during the elections conducted later on. But I knew very well even as a boy, which caste is strong in which constituency and was familiar with the discussions held to select the candidates belonging to the same caste to contest from that constituency.
Indira Gandhi had one and only aim of retaining the power, so she needed the support of communists to crush the Jansangh and the old guards of Congress like Morarji Desai, Nijalingappa, Neelam Sanjeeva Reddy, Kamraj and others. Communists knew pretty well that they cannot occupy the seat of power directly, so they devised a plan so that at least their theories would capture the seat of power. Therefore Indira Gandhi helped them to enter and occupy the posts in the universities, media, ICHR, NCERT etc. Communist Russia also pressurized to tread this path. Nehru and his daughter had become so close to Russia that they were not in a position to oppose her strongly. Communists somehow learnt the tactics from the dictatorial administration models of Russia and China to take the reins in their hands completely after occupying the vital places in the intellectual life of the country. However the lifeline of UPA government of Sonia Gandhi is in the hands of communists.
Media pretended silence when leftists occupied the education and history commissions, the departments of history, social science, literature and other subjects of the universities in our country. Leftists raised their voices when Murali Manohar Joshi from NDA government tried to bring the changes like Indianising the education, directing to mention the contributions of the ancient India to science while teaching science, advising to begin the day in the schools with Saraswathi Vandana. Even media projected them as great calamities. Congress members and the proponents of equality started a movement because they could visualize the rising storms in the country due to these changes. Nobody from these groups is objecting when Arjun Singh from the present UPA government is resurrecting the leftist agenda in its extreme form. Media, specially the English media, in fact is encouraging this trend.
The only aim of Congress is to retain the power and it lacks the original thinking. It is sleeping blissfully in the thought of borrowing it from the communists. But it is following the liberal policies, thinking that the economic polices of the previous government had damaged the economy. Communists have accepted these policies in their hearts and are unable to come out of the clutches of Marxism, the very basis of their identity.
The methods adopted by the leftists to spread their roots is not different from the bane of caste politics in India. They systematically execute the tasks of appointing people who are loyal to their theories in the universities, presenting their own theories through newspapers, television and other media, getting appreciative criticisms for the books written by their favourite writers, devising plans to banish the writers from the opposite group, spreading their messages by organizing the seminars frequently to attract the growing minds, getting awards and titles for their own men from the government. They have started a system of literary criticism for evaluating the books in the light of the standards defined in their theories. They think that they have reduced to the dust the traditional concepts of criticism like pure literature, aesthetics, imagery, context etc.
Even the truth in case of communists would be the stand taken by their party, similarly other values like art, morals etc. I need not explain these things to the people who have read the books written about these topics published by the communist Russia and sold at cheaper rates in India and in other countries.
I am always interested in the sociology, psychology history and other branches of humanities. I have studied all these subjects to some extent. Philosophy is my professional subject. Soundarya Meemse is my research field. But I am interested in the literature, I started writing novels. Truth and beauty, specially the relationship between the truth and the literature is haunting my mind. How much liberty an author has while creating the historical characters which are clearly defined by the inscriptions, records, relics, excavations and other evidences? I am haunted by this query- what is the nature of this liberty? The statements made by the author of 'The Real Tipu'(Kannada translation "Tipu - nija swaroopa" by Pradhan Gurudatta, Sahithi Sindhu Prakashana, Nrupathunga Road, Bangalore 1) H.D. Sharma in his preface in the matter has stimulated my thoughts. "Tipusultan has recently leaped from the history books on to the small screen. This has created a special interest about him and his period. This has raised a serious debate. Because many people - specially the people from Kerala - feel that Tipu was not like he was shown in the TV serial. (The serial is based on the novel 'The Sword of Tipusultan' by Bhagwan S. Gidwani is full of lies and has twisted the facts.) TV serial has contributed the untruths in its own way. This raging debate motivated me to make a detailed study about Tipu. When I learnt the facts I was shocked." (This is the English translation of Pradhan Gurudat's Kannada translation quoted by Mr. Bhyrappa in the article.)
Of course, one should not think about the Indian, specially the bollywood people who are experts in selling their thrilling, colourful entertainments. Even the people who write ballads are from the village fairs and dramas. But why people who write serious literature create thrilling, entertaining scenes of different type? Why do not they be loyal to the historical facts? Why do not they release themselves from the clutches of the historians of their ideology and try to interpret the historical evidences thinking independently? The historian S. Shettar (ICHR president) who supported Girish Karnad says, "Girish Karnad while writing a drama on Tippusultan, was searching for his good qualities only with the purpose of writing a drama. Dramatists and historians and creative writers will have their own ideals." (Vijaya Karnataka, 27th September, 2006). In this context, what is the difference between ideology and ideals? An author can escape under the cover of an advantage of an idea. If a historian attempts to use such advantages what would be the fate of the truth? Marxist historians cannot understand this question, even after explaining the subtleties of the question. Of course we cannot comment about the authors who are under their control.
