The Reign of Non-History

[scorpionx]

@Indrani

Why don't you post a thesis by any Marxist historians that had destroyed India and its history as claimed by Shourie. So that we can discuss the merits and demerits right here to clear up the ambiguities.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

There was peer review all along. Only it was an incestuous group of parasites, entrenched old boys' (and old girls') networks, with their hostilities against “communal historians.” As Mr. Guha himself identifies they all had their ideological leanings. History was sacrificed at the altar of secularism.

It is being corrected. Rest assured.

 

[Indrani]

Either you have interpreted wrong entirely or you have been reading selective paragraphs of the article. By not addressing the obvious flaws that had crippled right wing nationalist theories you are only opening up their weaknesses widely.

No I have not interpreted wrongly nor have I read selective paragraphs. As was clearly written, there was no space for right wing historian in Indian academia. So it is really galling that Marxists having cornered all resources and all academic positions for themselves now ask for credentials from right wing appointees. What have the left wing Marxists produced anyway for you to exult about their qualifications? Every single theory of theirs has been binned today. They are in the garbage they deserve to be. Be it AIT, be it the role of Gandhis and socialists in Indian freedom struggle, be it their history about Islamic invasion or Islamic rule in the subcontinent, they are the byword for scums of the earth today.

@Indrani

Why don't you post a thesis by any Marxist historians that had destroyed India and its history as claimed by Shourie. So that we can discuss the merits and demerits right here to clear up the ambiguities.

Why do you not discuss the article by Mr. Shourie instead? What is there which is not destroyed in India? 67 years after being independent you have a country with a per capita GDP of 1400 dollars. You have a garbage filled slum ridden urbanscape. A country prone to religious riots after riots. Should we talk about Maoists and insurgencies? Or our super efficient judiciary?

You know what, these are the symptoms of a deeply corrupt ideology. That of secularism as practiced by your Marxists.

 

[scorpionx]

@Indrani

I have read Shourie. Fundamentals of most of his arguments rest on so much absurdity that at some point it gets horribly difficult to distinguish him as an eminent economist and journalist with an simpleton Islamophobe and cristianophobe. Read what he has to say about Ayodhya issue in his blog. Do you think his arguments stand on any valid point at all?

 

[Indrani]

@Indrani

I have read Shourie. Fundamentals of most of his arguments rest on so much absurdity that at some point it gets horribly difficult to distinguish him as an eminent economist and journalist with an simpleton Islamophobe and cristianophobe. Read what he has to say about Ayodhya issue in his blog. Do you think his arguments stand on any valid point at all?

Oh please, eminent historian is a derogatory term used for the establishmentarian historians, so please do not try to confuse Shourie with those. The absurdity was on part of Mr. Jha. What about Ayodhya? Where is the inconsistency?

 

[scorpionx]

Oh please, eminent historian is a derogatory term used for the establishmentarian historians, so please do not try to confuse Shourie with those. The absurdity was on part of Mr. Jha. What about Ayodhya? Where is the inconsistency?

OK. For now give me some time. I will post Shourie's argument about Ayodhya and later the absurdity of his " theory" when I reach home.

 

[scorpionx]

Mr. Shourie's argument in support of the supposed destruction of the temple are as follows (Excerpts from his blog Voice of Dharma).

But each of these is only repeating what the other is saying. It was demanded that show some contemporary document". The demand for such a document was manifestly a dodge : the one document -- the Babarnama -- which could have settled the matter is truncated: Babar records his reaching Ayodhya on 2 April 1528. The pages from then to 18 September 1528 are missing, and are surmised to have been lost in a storm in May 1529, or during Humayun's subsequent wanderings in the desert as a fugitive. The matter, however, was soon nailed. If the absence of a contemporary accounts - the very day's Court bulletins recording the destruction of the temples of Mathura, Kashi, Pandharpur and scores and scores of other places and their replacement by mosques are available proof enough to propel Shahabuddin etc to demolish those mosques?

In the very same article To refute Shahabuddin's statement Shourie sites several examples across the Middle East where Churches and synagogues were destroyed and mosques had been built on the ruins. Along with Coptic and Jacobite churches he has brought example of a mosque between Hilla and Karbala that was once a temple of Shamash. All his arguments in support of a temple far east in the middle of India, Shourie is actually siting examples of destruction of sacred places in Saudi Arabia, Damascus and Egypt. Basic of his entire argument revolves around the prejudiced assumption that temple destruction in Middle East automatically bolsters the claim that babar must have destroyed Rama temple thousands of miles away in Ayodhya. Which professional historian in his right state of mind can accept this senseless logic?

No answer was forthcoming, instead, there were demands for more concrete proof. This was soon available in the results of the archaeological excavations which had been conducted in 1975-86, when attention was drawn to the pillars on which the domes etc. of the mosque rest to this day. to the carvings on these, it was said that these could well have been brought from elsewhere. But that alibi too floundered. It could not account for the pillar bases which were found three to four feet below the surface just outside the boundary wall; these were in perfect alignment with the pillars inside the mosque, and it was clear that, along with them, there must have been pillars on these bases which supported the larger structure of the temple; no one would have dragged bases of pillars from a distance and buried them outside the mosque to align with pillars inside the mosque!

Here Mr. Shourie refers to the ASI excavations conducted under the leadership of B B lal in between 1975-86. But he quite evidently have missed the flaws and weaknesses of the report. However it is hard to believe that he has done so without any deliberate intention. The ASI report as reviewed by Dr Sushil Shrivastava, a Professor at Allahabad University published in The Hindu are as follows. The unbridgeable difference between the lack of academic sense of Historiography by Shourie and a professional historian like Dr.Srivastava is quite distinct here. The review is as follows.

The voluminous ASI report pushes back human habitation in the area to the mid-13th century B.C. Again, unlike the earlier reports, it observes continuous human habitation on the site right from 1300 B.C. until the 16th century A.D. The report substantiates this observation by putting together a large number of cultural artefacts signifying different periods in history. However, it concludes the summary of its report with a tacit admission that this assumption may be erroneous: "Another noteworthy feature is that it was only during and after Period IV (Gupta level) onwards up to Period IX (late- and post-Mughal level) that the regular habitational deposits disappear in the concerned levels and the structural phases are associated with either structural debris or filling material taken out from the adjoining area to level the ground for construction purpose. As a result... much of the earlier material in the form of pottery, terracottas and other objects of the preceding periods, particularly of Period I (Northern Black Polished Ware (NBPW) level) and Period III (Kushan level) are found in the later periods mixed along with their contemporary material" (ASI Report, Ayodhya 2002-2003, Volume I, Chapter X, page 271).

Again, unlike Lal, the ASI report fails to inform us of any human activity other than settlement in the area. Further, the report makes no attempt to co-relate its findings with local history except when it identifies a complete stratum as belonging to Period IV, or the "Early Medieval Rajput level". This intervention in local history is both clever and deliberate, since the Rajput period in Indian history has somehow become synonymous with Brahmanical resurgence.

Contd.

 

[INDIC]

@Bang Galore I wanted to know what you meant by we have to look for connection of Rigveda and Indus Valley civilization after the discovery of the date of drying of Rigvedic Saraswati river(Ghaggar-Hakra)pushed the composition of Rigveda before 1900BC (unlike earlier estimate of 1200BC claimed by Max Mueller) as Indus Valley civilization is the only known civilization in the region.

 

[scorpionx]

1."The ASI report cleverly and deliberately introduced the term "Rajput" to define a stratum. This is clearly an effort to correlate that dynastic period with the supposed shrine-like structure and a wall that allegedly predates the mosque. The ASI first suggests that the wall having decorated stone blocks appears similar to the "Dharmachakrajina Vihara of Kumardevi, Queen of Gahadwal ruler Govindchandra of the twelfth century A.D. at Sarnath" (Volume I., pages 52 and 56). It then attempts to show a close resemblance of the alleged shrine-like structure with some temples in north India and concludes: "Thus on stylistic grounds, the present circular shrine can be dated to c. tenth century A.D. when the Kalchuris moved in this area and settled across river Sarayu. They possibly brought the tradition of stone circular temples transformed into brick in Ganga-Yamuna valley" (Volume I., page 71)."

2."It is surprising that the report should try to associate Ayodhya so closely with the Rajput kingdoms of either Kanauj or Banaras for there is no evidence to support the premise that any of these ruling families had their seat of authority in Ayodhya. Also, there is no reliable evidence to establish the presence of the Kalchuris in Ayodhya. There is some doubtful evidence regarding the Kalchuris control over Pratabgarh and Rae Bareli (Vishudanand Pathak, Uttar Bharat ka Rajnayatik Itihas, Uttar Pradesh Hindi Sansthan, Lucknow, 1990, pages 607-633). In history, the Kalchuris are understood as an insignificant clan limited to the Narbada area (A.C. Bannerjee, Lectures on Rajput History, Calcutta, 1962, page 24)."

3."The Kalchuri kingdom extended as far as Rewa and on that basis it was assumed that they might have extended their influence into Pratabgarh and Rae Bareli. There is no reliable evidence of their presence in Ayodhya or Faizabad. Again, the reference to the Kalchuris is deliberate for they were said to be Saivas and the report obliquely suggests that the shrine could be a Shiva temple."

4."The report commits the blunder of alleging the presence of a temple/shrine like structure below the "C" floor of the mosque. The alleged shrine is said to be 1.5 feet (0.46 metre) below the last floor of the mosque and its height from the base as shown in figure 17 in the report is about 3 feet (0.91 metre). This would mean that this structure was located between 4.5 and 5 feet (1.37 and 1.52 metres) below the "C" floor of the mosque. The difference in terms of time between the alleged shrine and the "C" floor of the mosque is very short. In such circumstances can we imagine a temple/shrine located at a depth immediately to the west of the mound on which the Babri mosque stood?"

5."Again, the report apparently attempts to distinguish the structure found just below the three floors of the mosque on the basis of its shape and the material used therein. It says that two different sizes of bricks have been used. It suggests that the bricks have been put together using a mixture of lime as was evident from the block which it imagined as the threshold of the alleged temple/shrine. It is known that the admixture of lime was commonly used as a building material in India after the 10th century A.D. It is also known that the structures of both the temple and the mosque utilised different sizes of stones or bricks as is evident in the temples and mosques raised during or after the 11th/12th centuries A.D. in India. In the circumstances, with the time lapse between the two structures being small and the shape of the structure being unclear, it is difficult to infer with certainty that it was either a shrine or a temple. Also, it is difficult to distinguish any material as exclusive to any religious community in a mixed society where sharing and borrowing were common (R.S. Tripathi, Lectures on Early Medieval India, Allahabad, n.d.)."
......................................................................

Quite evidently Shourie has interpreted the ASI report as he had wanted to interpret it from before without giving any heed to the gigantic flaws in the ASI report to fabricate Indian History as the right wing historians intended it to be.
References:

• The ASI Report - a review - The Hindu
• Ayodhya: Muslim Argument Examined by Arun Shourie

 

[Bang Galore]

@Bang Galore I wanted to know what you meant by we have to look for connection of Rigveda and Indus Valley civilization after the discovery of the date of drying of Rigvedic Saraswati river(Ghaggar-Hakra)pushed the composition of Rigveda before 1900BC (unlike earlier estimate of 1200BC claimed by Max Mueller) as Indus Valley civilization is the only known civilization in the region.

True but that is still circumstantial argument, there is little evidence at the Harappan sites of a clear connection with the people of the Rig veda. The Sarasvati's drying up dates will always be contentious, not everyone will agree on it. This is a bit of a grey zone where people will go with what they are inclined to because there is no clear evidence either way. This part remains a great mystery. The Rig veda itself makes no mention of these places, so we are left with pretty much nothing to go on. Quite possible you may be right about the connection but with no clear evidence, we will forever remain in the realm of speculation.

 

[INDIC]

True but that is still circumstantial argument, there is little evidence at the Harappan sites of a clear connection with the people of the Rig veda. The Sarasvati's drying up dates will always be contentious, not everyone will agree on it. This is a bit of a grey zone where people will go with what they are inclined to because there is no clear evidence either way. This part remains a great mystery. The Rig veda itself makes no mention of these places, so we are left with pretty much nothing to go on. Quite possible you may be right about the connection but with no clear evidence, we will forever remain in the realm of speculation.

The study of dried river bed revealed that it changed courses during 2200-1900BC and finally drying in 1900BC. Now, the mystery is how can two distinct civilization Rigvedic and IVC(peak period 2600-1900BC) can coexists as same location at the same time period if they weren't the same.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

Oh please, eminent historian is a derogatory term used for the establishmentarian historians, so please do not try to confuse Shourie with those. The absurdity was on part of Mr. Jha. What about Ayodhya? Where is the inconsistency?

Why are you getting so agitated/excited?

This issue will be settled by us in a few months. The ASI has been attacked for promoting Hindutva before as well. Well, in any case - what they conclude is going in the books. And the temple will also be built there.

I don't see any reason why you should be worked up any further. You can't wish away dissent now, can you?

 

[scorpionx]

Why are you getting so agitated/excited?

This issue will be settled by us in a few months. The ASI has been attacked for promoting Hindutva before as well. Well, in any case - what they conclude is going in the books. And the temple will also be built there.

I don't see any reason why you should be worked up any further. You can't wish away dissent now, can you?

Attacked would be a wrong word. "Refuted" seems more accurate.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

Attacked would be a wrong word. "Refuted" seems more accurate.

Not entirely/really. Since the early nineties the Archaeological Survey of India have been facing charges of being Hindutva supporters. Many of these are quite subjective - 'refuted' is applicable when they are challenged more successfully/properly. Labeling ASI Hindutva to prove a point (as has been happening for some time) or calling it 'Brahmanical' as mentioned in the Hindu article by Dr. Srivastava is attacking. Also calling someone - 'Islamophobe/Christianophobe etc' is precisely attacking, not exactly refuting.

In any case, I don't wish to be dragged into this controversy. I ain't a historian. The ASI published a report. The report has been used to support the case against the Mosque. That's all for me. The syllabus is going to be revised soon after the UP elections are over. Matter of time, actually.

 

[Butchcassidy]

The study of dried river bed revealed that it changed courses during 2200-1900BC and finally drying in 1900BC. Now, the mystery is how can two distinct civilization Rigvedic and IVC(peak period 2600-1900BC) can coexists as same location at the same time period if they weren't the same.

Could it be that vedic, at least rigvedic civilization be much older than IVC? Also similarity between avestan and vedic literature may point to a divergence at some point in time from a common parent civilization