The Reign of Non-History

[Joe Shearer]

It can't only be AIT for the similarities of Indo-Iranian culture, why should we confining to AIT for that. When you say AIT, AIT it simply doesn't mean some Aryan invasion, AIT is a package of number of unreliable theories with suspicious point of history. It is the established fact that Indian culture share a similarities with cultures outside India but its not necessary to cling to AIT or OIT to explain those similarities.

Of course you are right, and you have just built and destroyed a straw man. This AIT business was a convenient label for an inconvenient set of postulations by historians about pre-historic India, about, in particular, the mysterious connection between the Sanskrit language that the early British administrators acquired from their pandit advisors, and between Greek, Latin, and German.

In the normal course of things, the original beliefs and postulations would have changed. Almost every historical belief held, say, a century ago, in the early twentieth century, has been challenged or undermined either by subsequent research, or, more commonly, by a re-interpretation of the facts according to a revised historiography. This, too, would have changed; it did change, only people weren't looking. Obsessed with the obstruction of these supposedly composed theories of obstruction and of denigration of Indian culture, Indian critics were bent on proving that there was a conspiracy, first, a colonial conspiracy, then, a racist, Caucasian conspiracy, next, a Marxist conspiracy, but irrespective of provenance or of historiography, all bent on showing Indians in their worst light.

This frankly never happened. It is undeniable that there was a slant to British writing about Indian culture and Indian civilisation, One just has to read John Mills to see the contempt and disdain oozing out of every page. Others were better and their sense of superiority did not rise out of the page to strike one in the face. But there was the undeniable miasma of an unequal relationship rising out of every page of every book that the early colonialists wrote. Yet it did not mean that they got together once a year or so, and discussed what aspect of India should figure in their next season of hunting down Indian culture with a pack of fox-hounds. Instead whatever did get written was strongly influenced by the personal experiences of each of them in their education and their upbringing. It was their family's prejudices, their access to books of the day, popular magazines and the very questionable motives of contemporary cartoonists, the influence of their social circles, even the subtle influence of their wives at home! More.

 

[Joe Shearer]

@INDIC

If you look at the state of play now, you will find that there is, in fact, no 'school' of this and 'school' of that; all that exists in the minds and arsenals of propagandists. The best summation of the situation is reflected in The Indo-Aryan Controversy: Evidence and inference in Indian history, edited by Edwin F. Bryant and Laurie L. Patton. It is a collection of views from all sides on the subject.

In June of 1997, at a celebration of the twenty-first birthday of a young man in an upper middle-class neighborhood in Bombay, a high school teacher was heard to say,"The Indo-Europeans! No one believes in those anymore. They've been disproved by Indian scholars for decades now."

It is a mystery where this person acquired the opinion. But there are offenders on both sides.

Six months later, at an academic reception in New York City, a well-known intellectual raised his eyebrows when asked about the indigenous Aryan theory, and said: "Those theories coming out of India? Pure, unreasoned polemics....."

Quite.

Actually, I rather subscribe to the second opinion myself.

But there is more to it than our opinions, otherwise we would be guilty of the same schoolboyish understanding of the subject of history as was displayed just a few posts ago on this very thread.

In Indological studies, we now exist in an era where one's use of evidence is inevitably suspect of being linked to nationalist, colonialist, or cultural agendas. If one is "Western," one is suspect of neocolonialism or Orientalism. If one is "Indian", one is suspect of nationalism or Marxism. {Obviously the editor has not come across the hilarious Indian right-wing formula of a Western liberal colonialist Marxist! - JS} If one is the wrong colour and takes the wrong point of view, one is suspect of being co-opted by the false consciousness of the other side.

No issue is more illustrative of this impasse than the debate about Aryan origins. Until recently, publications by Indo-Europeanists and Indigenous Aryanists have continued on with very little conversation between the opponents, and great opportunity for creating straw men on both sides. The purpose of this volume is to present various sides of the arguments in their own voices, as well as provide a kind of template for the basic issues involved. Recent public debate has allowed for some direct contact between sparring partners.; it is the point of the editors of the present volume that more juxtaposition of views, more contact, and more agreements on the rules of evidence is necessary.

I hope that this will throw further light on the question, and in an illuminating, rather than a blinding kind of way.

 

[INDIC]

@Joe Shearer are you sure Panini invented classical Sanskrit, what I heard he just standardized it with his book Ashtaddhayai, how can a language be invented. Although the common man was speaking Prakrit from 5th century BC onwards.

 

[Joe Shearer]

@Joe Shearer are you sure Panini invented classical Sanskrit, what I heard he just standardized it with his book Ashtaddhayai, how can a language be invented. Although the common
man was speaking Prakrit from 5th century BC onwards.

@INDIC

You are absolutely correct, the word should have been 'standardised'. Silly mistake to make. Sorry.

 

[anonymus]

Do the attacks on the discipline of History presage worse days ahead?

The appointment of Yellapragada Sudershan Rao as the new chairperson of the Indian Council of Historical Research (ICHR) may have been disappointing, but surely not unexpected. It has been widely reported in the mainstream media that Y S Rao’s opinions on historical matters align very closely with the world view of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and other Hindutva ideologues. These views include a celebration of the caste system and an assertion that epics like the Ramayana and the Mahabharata are exact expositions of events as they happened while also being compendia of “Indian” morality. His corpus of work as a historian, on the other hand, remains largely unpublished and unknown. It is evident that the new ICHR head has been appointed to push the Hindutva version of history and institutionalise it as much as possible.

The discipline of History has been the first to be attacked by religious right-wingers in India because a consciousness of history and a historical memory have been the biggest obstacles to the project of religious nationalism in our part of the world. The destruction of the discipline of History is central to the political project of religious nationalism but it is defended as an alternate, nationalist, version of history. We have seen the consequences of such attacks on History in neighbouring Pakistan where Muslim nationalists and fundamentalists have destroyed the discipline with state backing. Their Hindutva cousins in India attempted to do something similar during the first National Democratic Alliance (NDA) regime with the support of the then Human Resource Development Minister, Murli Manohar Joshi. That attempt was only a partial success; partly because of the unexpected end to NDA rule, and also because, over the past century or so, the discipline of History in India has developed roots deep enough to weather a storm or two.

However, it would be a mistake to be sanguine about the ability of the discipline to remain immune to renewed attacks. Despite all the advancements in the academic practice of the discipline, historians have been far less able and willing to reach out to a wider audience in sustained public engagements about the past and the present. This is not to suggest that historians have confined themselves to their proverbial “ivory towers”. Yet the popular narratives of history and thus the “historical consciousness” of people have remained hostage to what can perhaps only be described by a neologism: non-history, which could be defined as a narrative of the past which subverts the basic methodological rules and epistemological claims of History as a discipline.

While some historians have, periodically, agonised and written about the inability of the discipline to become “popular”, there has never been a successful attempt to change this. The ICHR and the Indian History Congress – the oldest institutions of the discipline in the country – have failed to engage in a battle with non-history and push back its boundaries. Rather, they have been unsuccessful in even defending the discipline in the few islands where it is still practised – the university departments and research institutions. An endemic lack of funds for research or for the preservation and development of archives, the widespread prevalence of nepotistic appointments and academic mediocrity, lack of enough good journals for publishing research, combined with the unavailability of employment (other than in administrative services) for History graduates have all hollowed out the discipline from inside. Instead of historians engaging with and confronting non-history, the present situation is one where History as a discipline is not practised in most History departments of Indian universities and archives remain open only to the “gnawing criticism of the rats”.

There are, however, some who have argued that what this RSS-dominated NDA government is doing is merely a mirror of what the “Marxists” have done previously. This is not only incorrect as both institutions have allowed historians of different persuasions to practise their scholarship, but also unfair as it clubs serious historians with a range of views, often conflicting, with the proponents of non-history. As Romila Thapar has pointed out, “Marxist” in this context has come to mean anyone who adheres to the basic methodological rules and epistemological claims of the discipline, not actually those who work with Marxist tools. The critique of ICHR can well be that it did not do enough to build up History as a discipline, but it cannot be that one set of “historians” is repeating what another set did. What is being proposed under the new dispensation is not just a reordering of the ideological and political moorings of History as a discipline in India, rather it seems to be a first step towards abolishing History as a modern, academic discipline and replacing it with Hindu fundamentalist dogma. A negation of history is after all the first, and foundational, step towards negating India as a modern, secular democracy.

The Reign of Non-History | Economic and Political Weekly

@Joe Shearer @Oscar @Aeronaut @Bang Galore @Indischer @Ravi Nair @nair @Contrarian and all

There are, however, some who have argued that what this RSS-dominated NDA government is doing is merely a mirror of what the “Marxists” have done previously. This is not only incorrect as both institutions have allowed historians of different persuasions to practise their scholarship, but also unfair as it clubs serious historians with a range of views, often conflicting, with the proponents of non-history. As Romila Thapar has pointed out, “Marxist” in this context has come to mean anyone who adheres to the basic methodological rules and epistemological claims of the discipline, not actually those who work with Marxist tools. The critique of ICHR can well be that it did not do enough to build up History as a discipline, but it cannot be that one set of “historians” is repeating what another set did. What is being proposed under the new dispensation is not just a reordering of the ideological and political moorings of History as a discipline in India, rather it seems to be a first step towards abolishing History as a modern, academic discipline and replacing it with Hindu fundamentalist dogma. A negation of history is after all the first, and foundational, step towards negating India as a modern, secular democracy.

So you want to say that the the " methodological,Scientific, and impartial " narrative of your glorious comrades where they state that Nalanda was burned by two Brahmins who did Surya sadhana for 12 years and threw ashes at Nalanda, thus burning it is correct ( which is derived from mythological text written 400 year after the incident, a text more fictional than Nagraj comics); while completely ignoring Taqht-e-nasiri written by Minhaj-i-Siraj, where he vividly describes as to how Bakhtiyar Khilji, a Gazi of Islam destroyed Indian Science and massacred infidel ar Nalanda is a Hindutva drivel that should be expunged from Glorious Marxist History of India.

Lal Salam Comrade!!

How history was made up at Nalanda | The Indian Express | Page 99

Anyway, while i know it matters shit to ideologically motivated leftist, but if anyone want to go understand this issue of negationism, they could go through this thread.

Anything i would say would be repeat of what has been stated here, already.

Bakhtiyar Khilji - Nalanda university - Historum - History Forums

@Bang Galore @Indischer @Ravi Nair @nair @Contrarian @INDIC @SarthakGanguly @Indrani and all


It is a tragedy that standard Indian history book of Soviet Union, written by Soviet marxists, depicted Indian history in much more impartial manner than Indian marxist who are ideologically driven to blame anything and everything on Hindus especially Brahmins even when that assertion does not have a crippled leg to stand upon. They have even whitewashed Mahmud Ghazni who is depicted as someone who have positive impact on trade and discounted countless books written by Arabs themselves ( ibn-e-battuta ) on basis of his invasions not being mentioned in some Jain text ( done by Marxist's own Romila thapar.

And then this Marxist rag ( economic and Political weekly ) has a gall to cry of Partiality.

 

[INDIC]

How history was made up at Nalanda | The Indian Express | Page 99

Anyway, while i know it matters shit to ideologically motivated leftist, but if anyone want to go understand this issue of negationism, they could go through this thread.

Anything i would say would be repeat of what has been stated here already.

Bakhtiyar Khilji - Nalanda university - Historum - History Forums

@Bang Galore @Indischer @Ravi Nair @nair @Contrarian @INDIC @Indrani and all

I studied the ncert book, there was a mention of Hunnic attack on Nalanda university during end of Gupta dynasty but attack by Bakhtiyar Khilji was totally whitewashed from the history book and many passed out kids think Huns ultimately destroyed the Nalanda. Thanks we have internet now and we can dig the real history.

 

[anonymus]

I studied the ncert book, there was a mention of Hunnic attack on Nalanda university during end of Gupta dynasty but attack by Bakhtiyar Khilji was totally whitewashed from the history book and many passed out kids think Huns ultimately destroyed the Nalanda. Thanks we have internet now and we can dig the real history.

I know this.

I was just pointing out hypocrisy of Marxists.

Indian history and Culture is much more appreciated by Westerners than Indian Brown Sahibs.

 

[farhan_9909]

@Joe Shearer

Sir would it be safe to assume that panini is native to Pakistan?

What about the origin of Sanskrit?was it really developed in the present day Pakistani geography?

 

[INDIC]

I know this.

I was just pointing out hypocrisy of Marxists.

Indian history and Culture is much more appreciated by Westerners than Indian Brown Sahibs.

I was in first year in my college when I first read about it on the internet, it was highly shocking to know it after left in years of delusion that Huns ultimately burnt the Nalanda university . Same way to Indus valley, many internet reference was pointing to the intermediate phase of Indus valley civilization from 1900-1300BC showing how Indus valley civilization transformed into Vedic culture in the period 1900-1300BC.

 

[anonymus]

@Joe Shearer

Sir would it be safe to assume that panini is native to Pakistan?

What about the origin of Sanskrit?was it really developed in the present day Pakistani geography?

Panini was born in Gandhara near what is Khyber-Pakhtunwala today. He wrote Asthadhyayi near the confluence of Kabul and Indus river.

 

[Indrani]

So you want to say that the the " methodological,Scientific, and impartial " narrative of your glorious comrades where they state that Nalanda was burned by two Brahmins who did Surya sadhana for 12 years and threw ashes at Nalanda, thus burning it is correct ( which is derived from mythological text written 400 year after the incident, a text more fictional than Nagraj comics); while completely ignoring Taqht-e-nasiri written by Minhaj-i-Siraj, where he vividly describes as to how Bakhtiyar Khilji, a Gazi of Islam destroyed Indian Science and massacred infidel ar Nalanda is a Hindutva drivel that should be expunged from Glorious Marxist History of India.

Lal Salam Comrade!!

How history was made up at Nalanda | The Indian Express | Page 99

Anyway, while i know it matters shit to ideologically motivated leftist, but if anyone want to go understand this issue of negationism, they could go through this thread.

Anything i would say would be repeat of what has been stated here already.

Bakhtiyar Khilji - Nalanda university - Historum - History Forums

@Bang Galore @Indischer @Ravi Nair @nair @Contrarian @INDIC @Indrani and all


It is a tragedy that standard Indian history book during Soviet Union, written by Soviet marxists, depicted Indian history in much more impartial manner than Indian marxist who are ideologically driven to blame anything and everything on Hindus especially Brahmins even when that assertion does not have a crippled leg to stand upon. They have even whitewashed Mahmud Ghazni who is depicted as someone who have positive impact on trade and discounted countless books written by Arabs themselves ( ibn-e-battuta ) on basis of his invasions not being mentioned in some Jain text ( done by Marxist's own Romila thapar.

And then this Marxist rag ( economic and Political weekly ) has a gall to cry of Partiality.

LOL. That same Romila Thapar worshipers also discount all Hindu, Jain, and Buddhist literature which have no mention of civilians being killed in wars in the support of their claim that Muslims were not the first to target civilians in war. Any and all lies will be told by the minions of Islam in their service of Islam.

 

[INDIC]

@Joe Shearer

Sir would it be safe to assume that panini is native to Pakistan?

What about the origin of Sanskrit?was it really developed in the present day Pakistani geography?

Panini was from Pushakalavati city of Gandhara, Pushakalvati and Takshashila were named after nephews of Hindu God Lord Rama named Pushkala and Taksha.. He standardized the Classical Sanskrit language in his book Ashtaddhayi(8 chapters), classical Sanskrit originated from Vedic Sanskrit and Rigveda mentions the language belongs to the region of Sapta Sindhu( roughly the land between Ganges-Yamuna and Indus river).

Panini was born in Gandhara near what is Khyber-Pakhtunwala today. He wrote Asthadhyayi near the confluence of Kabul and Indus river.

Pashtuns settled in Gandhara in later on, first Pashtun tribe crossed the Suleiman mountains to enter Gandhara in 9th century. The original inhabitants of Gandhara were mostly massacred or displaced elsewhere by Ghaznavi or other invaders.

 

[scorpionx]

@anonymus

India: Historian D.N. Jha’s Reply to Arun Shourie
by sacw.net, 9 July

I was amused to read ‘How History Was Made Up At Nalanda’ (28 June 2014, the Indian Express) by Arun Shourie, who has dished out ignorance masquerading as knowledge – reason enough to have pity on him and sympathy for his readers! Since he has referred to me by name and has charged me with fudging evidence to distort the historical narrative of the destruction of the ancient Nalandamahavihar, I consider it necessary to rebut his allegations and set the record straight instead of ignoring his balderdash.
My presentation at the Indian History Congress, to which Shourie refers, was in 2006 and not 2004 as stated by Shourie. It was not devoted to the destruction of ancient Nalanda per se – his account misleads readers and pulls the wool over their eyes. It was in fact focused on the antagonism between Brahmins and Buddhists, for which I drew on different kinds of evidence including myths and traditions. In this context I cited the tradition recorded in the 18th century Tibetan text, Pag-sam-jon-zang by Sumpa Khan-Po Yece Pal Jor, mentioned by B N S Yadava in his Society and Culture in Northern India in the Twelfth Century - with due acknowledgement, although in his pettiness Shourie is quick to discover plagiarism on my part! (I may add that “Hindu fanatics” are not my words but Yadav’s, which is why they are in quotes. How sad that one has to point this out to a winner of the Magsaysay Award!)

In his conceit Shourie is disdainful and dismissive of the Tibetan tradition, which has certain elements of miracle in it, as recorded in the text. Here is the relevant extract from Sumpa’s work cited by Shourie: “While a religious sermon was being delivered in the temple that he [Kakut Siddha] had erected at Nalanda, a few young monks threw washing water at two Tirthika beggars. (The Buddhists used to designate the Hindus by the term Tirthika). The beggars, being angry, set fire on the three shrines of Dharmaganja, the Buddhist University of Nalanda, viz. — Ratna Sagara, Ratna Ranjaka including the nine-storeyed temple called Ratnodadhi which contained the library of sacred books” (p.92). Shourie questions how the two beggars could go from building to building to “burn down the entire, huge, scattered complex.” Look at another passage (abridged by me in the following paragraph) from the History of Buddhism in India written by another Tibetan monk and scholar, Taranatha, in the 17th century:
During the consecration of the of the temple built by Kakutsiddha at Nalendra [Nalanda] “the young naughty sramanas threw slops at the two tirthika beggars and kept them pressed inside door panels and set ferocious dogs on them”. Angered by this, one of them went on arranging for their livelihood and the other sat in a deep pit and “engaged himself in surya sadhana” [solar worship], first for nine years and then for three more years and having thus “acquired mantrasiddhi” he “performed a sacrifice and scattered the charmed ashes all around” which “immediately resulted in a miraculously produced fire” which consumed all the eighty-four temples and the scriptures some of which, however, were saved by water flowing from an upper floor of the nine storey Ratnodadhi temple. (History of Buddhism in India, English tr. Lama Chimpa & Alka Chattopadhyaya, pp.141-42).

If we look at the two narratives closely they are similar. The role of the Tirthikas and their miraculous fire causing a conflagration are common to both. Admittedly, one does not have to take the miracles seriously, but it is not justified to ignore their importance as part of traditions which gain in strength over time and become part of the collective memory of a community. Nor is it desirable or defensible to disregard the long standing antagonism between Brahmins and Buddhists, which may have given rise to the Tibetan tradition and nurtured it until the 18th century or even later. It is in the context of this Buddhist- Tirthika animosity that the account of Sumpa assumes importance; it also makes sense because it jibes with Taranatha’s evidence. Further, neither Sumpa nor Taranatha ever came to India. This should mean that the idea of Brahminical hostility to the religion of the Buddha travelled to Tibet fairly early, became part of its Buddhist tradition, and found expression in 17th-18th century Tibetan writings. Acceptance or rejection of this kind of source criticism is welcome if it comes from a professional historian but not from someone who flirts with history as Shourie does.


Contd..

 

[anonymus]

Pashtuns settled in Gandhara in later on, first Pashtun tribe crossed the Suleiman mountains to enter Gandhara in 9th century. The original inhabitants of Gandhara were mostly massacred or displaced elsewhere by Ghaznavi or other invaders.

Panini was from 4th century BCE .At that time Aryavrata was assumed to stretch to Central asia with Kambhoj Mahajanpada being it's Northern most province.

Pashtuns does not have a single common ethnic origin. Afridi and Mohmand tribes were mentioned in Asthadhyayi and probably were Indo-Aryan in origin while Turkic tribes like Ghilzai are late invaders.

 

[Indrani]

About the alleged destruction of Buddhist and Jain temples by Hindus, Sita Ram Goel observes,10 “It is intriguing indeed that whenever archaeological evidence points towards a mosque as standing on the site of a Hindu temple, our Marxist professors start seeing a Buddhist monastery buried underneath. They also invent some Saiva king as destroying Buddhist and Jain shrines whenever the large-scale destruction of Hindu temples by Islamic invaders is mentioned. They never mention the destruction of big Buddhist and Jain complexes which dotted the length and breadth of India, Khurasan, and Sinkiang on the eve of the Islamic invasion, as testified by H’en Tsang. He asks the historians to produce epigraphic and literary evidences to suggest the destruction of Buddhists and Jain places by Hindus, the names and places of Hindu monuments which stand on the sites occupied earlier by Buddhist or Jain monuments. Yet, till today no concrete evidence has been given by historians to substantiate their claim.

But, there is enough evidence to show that Buddhist and Jain temples and monasteries at Bukhara, Samarqand, Khotan, Balkh, Bamian, Kabul, Ghazni, Qandhar, Begram, Jalalabad, Peshawar, Charsadda, Ohind, Taxila, Multan, Mirpurkhas, Nagar-Parkar, Sialkot, Srinagar, Jalandhar, Jagadhari, Sugh, Tobra, Agroha, Delhi, Mathura, Hastinapur, Kanauj, Sravasti, Ayodhya, Varanasi, Sarnath, Nalanda, Vikramasila, Vaishali, Rajgir, Odantapuri, Bharhut, Champa, Paharpur, Jagaddal, Jajnagar, Nagarjunikonda, Amravati, Kanchi, Dwarasamudra, Devagiri, Bharuch, Valabhi, Girnar, Khambhat Patan, Jalor, Chandravati, Bhinmal, Didwana, Nagaur, Osian, Ajmer, Bairat, Gwalior, Chanderi, Mandu, Dhar etc were destroyed by the sword of Islam.11

It should be noted that though Brahmanical, Buddhist and Jain sects and sub-sects had heated discussions among themselves, and used even strong language for their adversaries, the occasions when they exchanged physical blows were few and far between. The recent spurt of accusations that Hindus were bigots and vandals like Christians and Muslims seems to be an after-thought. Apologists, who find it impossible to whitewash Christianity and Islam, are out to redress the balance by blackening Hinduism.