[Reader-list] Fascist future of the past

[Harsh Kapoor]

Frontline
Volume 20, Issue 11, May 24 - June 06, 2003
http://www.flonnet.com/fl2011/stories/20030606001508100.htm

EDUCATION

HISTORY RETOLD

K.N. PANIKKAR

Fascist future of the past.

THE history of India is being retold. And with the support of the 
government. There is nothing extraordinary in either of them. For 
history, like any other discipline, undergoes continuous revision. 
That is when historians gain access to hitherto unused sources or 
employ new analytical tools. The historian's work is also contingent 
upon the infrastructure generated and controlled by the government, 
particularly the archival and the archaeological. On many occasions, 
research projects are undertaken with the financial support proffered 
by the agencies of the government. Yet, the historian in independent 
India has enjoyed enough intellectual freedom to pursue his work 
without external interference. It is arguable that the advances made 
by Indian historiography during the post-Independence period would 
not have been possible without this independence. The situation has 
rapidly changed during the last few years. The government is now a 
key player in the writing of history, deciding and dictating what 
constitutes authentic history and disseminating it through its 
agencies such as the Indian Council of Historical Research (ICHR) and 
the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT).

The past is a matter of interest to all governments as it often 
serves as a source of legitimacy for their politics and as a 
justification for the society and polity they seek to construct. The 
involvement of succeeding governments in India in matters historical 
can be traced to these reasons. Both Jawaharlal Nehru and Indira 
Gandhi had taken keen interest in the writing of history; the latter 
even embedded at the Red Fort in Delhi an official version of history 
in a time capsule. Their engagement was integral to the nature of 
their politics: the creation of a secular nation out of the diverse 
religious communities into which the people were organisationally, 
ideologically and emotionally divided. The attempt, therefore, was to 
retrieve the past from the colonial distortions and thus construct a 
nationalist history, which would reinforce the sense of commonness 
that the anti-colonial struggle had proffered. More important, to 
call attention to the fact that the secular character of the nation 
is not a contemporary construction but a part and continuation of its 
historical experience. Nehru had already laid the foundation for such 
a view in The Discovery of India , which was subsequently elaborated 
by many.

The government of independent India had initiated several projects, 
primarily to underline the historical processes that contributed to 
the making of the nation. One of the earliest efforts was to 
commission a history of the Revolt of 1857, which was initially 
entrusted to R.C. Majumdar who, however, withdrew owing to some 
differences of opinion. It was subsequently undertaken by Tarachand, 
Majumdar publishing his version independent of the government. 
Tarachand also wrote a multi-volume history of the freedom movement, 
which was sponsored by the government. Majumdar's withdrawal 
underlined the tension inherent in government sponsorship, which was 
sought to be overcome by setting up independent and autonomous 
institutions.

It was in this context that the NCERT and the ICHR came into being. 
These institutions, like other such bodies as the Indian Council for 
Social Science Research (ICSSR), were envisaged as autonomous 
organisations with full control over their academic activities 
without any interference from the government. The question of 
autonomy was seriously debated in the ICSSR during the chairmanship 
of Sukhamoy Chakravarty when the government tried to control its 
activities. Although financial dependence and academic autonomy are 
difficult to reconcile, eventually the government recognised the 
significance of such organisations functioning within an autonomous 
sphere. Unfortunately, such ideas have no sanctity in the new 
dispensation and these institutions have been relegated to the 
position of loyal appendages of the government. Yet, it is necessary 
to recall that both the NCERT and the ICHR, by their constitution, 
are independent and autonomous organisations.

THE NCERT's main brief was to prepare standard textbooks for use in 
schools all over India. In the field of history, the NCERT had 
managed to persuade some of the outstanding historians of India - 
most of whom are in the list of `eminent historians' derisively 
described so by Arun Shourie, now Disinvestment Minister -  to write 
books for school children from Class VI onwards. Although these 
textbooks had several limitations in both content and pedagogy as 
recently pointed out by Krishna Kumar about the modern history 
textbook, they marked a healthy departure from the books then in use 
in schools. In a country where scholars hardly wrote textbooks the 
participation of some of the well-recognised names in the project was 
itself an achievement. It was clear that their involvement was part 
of an effort to bring about a paradigm shift in the teaching of 
history. Understandably, these textbooks earned near-universal 
acclaim at that time. Apart from the professional competence, they 
helped students envision the nation as a secular entity.

These textbooks came under adverse comments during the Janata regime 
after the Emergency. Reportedly at the instance of some leaders of 
the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), the government contemplated 
the withdrawal of these books on the plea that they injured the 
religious sentiments of Hindus. In the face of nation-wide protests, 
the government decided to refer them to some historians, an 
overwhelming majority of who found nothing wrong with these books. 
The government, therefore, dropped the idea of withdrawing them.

These are the same books that have recently attracted the ire of the 
Sangh Parivar on the same grounds -  that they either injure the 
religious feelings of the people or insult the historical memory of 
certain communities. Initially, the government decided to expunge all 
such facts from the text and later decided to suppress them 
altogether and replace them with new books. Unlike in 1977, there was 
no consultation with historians, at least not known to the public, 
and the decision was reportedly taken by the Human Resource 
Development Minister who, if his public pronouncements are to be 
believed, has emerged as an `acknowledged' authority on history! He 
has, however, announced that in future all textbooks would be vetted 
by religious leaders to ensure that they are properly sanitised of 
all objectionable material. This change of procedure is perhaps a 
reflection of the erosion of the commitment of the government to 
democratic values. About the practice of history, however, the 
government censure raises an important question. What part of history 
should the people know? It needs no reiteration that all facts of 
history can never be incorporated in any work, let alone in a 
textbook. But can deletions be made on the ground that they are 
likely to be uncomfortable to some? For instance, should the 
textbooks contain the changing food habits of the people, influenced 
as they were by the nature of social organisation and the system of 
economic production? That the consumption of beef was not a taboo 
during the Vedic period is a significant marker of the social 
organisation at that time. So was its prohibition at a later time. 
Both help explain the patterns of social change. Similarly should the 
iniquities of the caste system, practised even today, be kept under 
wraps? Should we shroud the fact that Gandhiji was killed by a Hindu 
fanatic? If we accept the principle of selective presentation based 
on political convenience, quite a bit of our known history would be 
lost to the coming generations.

The NCERT has published four textbooks to replace the old ones: India 
and the World for Class VI, Contemporary India for Class IX, Medieval 
India and Ancient India for Class XI. In the foreword to these books, 
NCERT Director states: "The new techniques and technologies, new 
excavations and explorations have resulted in fresh interpretations 
of several situations in history... . The new NCERT textbooks in 
history have been prepared adhering strictly to the principle of 
giving an objective account of historical events. The latest 
researches and interpretations in the field have been incorporated." 
This indeed is a laudable sentiment, as the fruits of recent research 
should necessarily find a place in the textbooks. The earlier 
textbooks were written about 30 years ago, and much has happened 
since in Indian historiography by way of empirical advance and 
conceptual innovation. Unfortunately, the new textbooks, despite the 
Director's claim, hardly contain anything new, either empirically or 
analytically, except assertions of certain unsubstantiated claims 
about the antiquity of Indian civilisation and its achievements and 
the indigenous origins of the Aryans. In fact, these textbooks, 
replete with factual errors and unacknowledged reproductions from the 
works of other scholars, are much poorer in knowledge and 
unprofessional in pedagogic methods. They have depended more on 
imagination than on historian's craft.


THE objection to these books, however much the critics have harped on 
factual errors and anachronisms, is much more fundamental. The 
errors, as NCERT Director has repeatedly stated, can be corrected, 
even if they are a poor commentary on the knowledge of the 
`specialists' who have authored these books. But then several of them 
are not simple errors unwittingly committed; there appears to be some 
method in the madness. For, some facts are deliberately suppressed, 
others are underplayed and some others are blown out of proportion. 
They seek to establish the unmatched antiquity of Indian civilisation 
and its unparalleled achievements. For instance, Indian civilisation 
is credited with an "unbroken history of 8,000 years i.e. from 
Neolithic times" and the Upanishads are described as the "greatest 
work on philosophy in the history of humankind". Hinduism, "the 
eternal spiritual tradition of India," is traced to the Harappan 
civilisation, which coincides with the Vedic. The religious and 
political practices of the ancient civilisation are still in vogue, 
which suggests continuity from the ancient past. The pipal tree, the 
linga, fire, sun, wind and sky, which were the objects of worship 
during the `Harappan-Vedic' civilisation continue to be so even 
today. Similarity also exists in political practices and 
institutions. The rules which "governed the debate and behaviour of 
the members in Sabha and Samiti were like in our Parliament". The 
king was assisted by a council of ministers, which was "called 
mantriparshad as today". The rulers were "chosen by the people of the 
kingdom like we choose our government today".

The achievements of Indian civilisation in science and technology 
receive particular attention. India is projected as the original home 
of knowledge in many a field. The Class XI textbook states: "In the 
field of mathematics, astronomy and medicine India had much advanced 
knowledge during this period in comparison to any other country in 
the world. These developments in science and technology in India were 
first borrowed by Arabs and then by the Western world." The narrative 
that follows does not say how the Indian knowledge in these fields 
was advanced than others or how the Arabs and the West incorporated 
it. Surprisingly, what is said about Vedic science is exactly the 
same in both Class VI and Class XI books! Surely, Class XI students 
should know more about the scientific achievements of the Vedic 
Aryans.

In contrast to the repeated references to science and technology in 
ancient India, the textbook on medieval India is remarkably silent 
about them. It gives the impression that there were no scientific 
pursuits or technological innovations worth mentioning in this 
period. The chapters on culture focus mainly on architecture, 
painting and religious movements. But in all of them the syncretic 
tendencies that emerged as a result of the coming together of two 
different streams, which produced a new cultural ambience, are 
scrupulously overlooked. The changes in the architectural style as a 
result of the mutual influence of the Islamic and the Hindu 
traditions do not find a mention, even if some of the finest 
structures of medieval India were the result of this interaction. At 
the same time architecture is used to underline religious division. 
Shajahan, it is stated, forbade the construction of Hindu temples and 
destroyed others. The number of mosques repaired or constructed and 
temples destroyed by Aurangazeb form the only content of the section 
on the decline of Mughal architecture!

The plural religious context and influence as a factor in the 
emergence of medieval religious movements such as the Bhakti and the 
Sufi movements and in their philosophical outlook have been 
unambiguously rejected. The Bakhti movement, it is asserted, was "not 
a Hindu response to the egalitarian message of Islam and its spread 
among the lower classes," but only the continuation of the tradition 
from the times of the Upanishads and the Bhagvat Gita. Similarly, 
Sufism is described as "a movement that arose independently within 
the Muslim world and not as a consequence of its interface with 
Hinduism". Apart from a passing reference to Dadu, none of the 
Nirguna Bhaktas like Kabir, and Raidas find a place in the text. The 
caste system and religious practices such as idolatry, which the 
Nirguna Bhaktas criticised and rejected have been completely 
overlooked. The attitude of the Sufi saints towards Hinduism and 
their attempts to promote cultural synthesis do not figure at all in 
the discussion. Such silence is perhaps not accidental, but part of a 
design to foreground religious exclusion and difference as the 
characteristic of Indian society.

The suppression, distortion and invention of historical facts, which 
are aplenty, have undermined the quality of these new textbooks and 
have made them unworthy of use in the schools. More importantly, the 
sense of history that it seeks to convey tends to weaken the unity of 
the nation and endanger social harmony. For almost everything that 
happened in history an undercurrent of religious identity is either 
directly or indirectly suggested and the cultural and philosophical 
dynamism that the presence of different religious streams had 
entailed, has been scrupulously avoided. Added to that is a pro-Hindu 
slant; the defence of Hindu social institutions running through the 
entire narrative. For instance, the section on conversions does not 
give any information about the causes and the process of conversion. 
It only tries to prove that the "so-called tyranny of the caste 
system" has nothing to do with conversions and that the social 
condition of the converts did not improve thereafter.

A close reading of all the four textbooks leaves the impression that 
the history of India is being projected in religious terms, 
privileging the Hindu as the embodiment of the nation. This is a 
departure from the secular-scientific outlook of the earlier 
textbooks. This change is symptomatic of the political project of the 
present government, namely to redefine the Indian nation as Hindu, 
euphemistically claimed as the realisation of cultural nationalism. 
What the NCERT has done is to reshape the Indian past in order to 
provide historical justification for this political project and to 
mould communally the historical consciousness of the coming 
generations. In the process, it has neither respected the norms of 
historical discipline nor followed its generally accepted methods. 
The imprecise and unsubstantiated statements and totally unconnected 
digressions, which are far too many to recount, make these books 
professionally unacceptable.

The present revision of history, academically bizarre but politically 
well-crafted, becomes intelligible only in the context of the 
communalisation of the public discourse during the last few years. 
The communal view of history presented by the textbooks used in the 
schools run by the Sangh-controlled Vidya Bharati, has considerably 
contributed to this process. So has the Hinduised notion of the past 
popularised by the Itihas Sankalan Samiti, entrusted with the task of 
rewriting history. So far, this interpretation had no credibility or 
acceptance in academia. By providing the stamp of its governmental 
authority, the NCERT has brought it to the mainstream. The `new' 
history that it propounds, reminiscent of what the fascist regimes 
did, is likely to contribute to the creation of a sense of popular 
ultra nationalism. For, it seeks to inculcate a false sense of pride 
in a community with a dismal present by associating it with a past 
where it had unparalleled achievements to its credit. Such a view can 
serve the `nation' well, by providing an ideology for organising the 
politics of identity, exclusion and hatred. The example of fascism in 
Europe has demonstrated the lure of aggression for the defeated and 
the sense of hatred that it could generate. The NCERT textbooks 
invoke the past to create a similar psychology of pride and 
aggression. Hindu communalism has thus made yet another advance in 
moulding the future generations in a communal way.

K.N. Panikkar is Vice-Chancellor of the Sree Sankaracharya University 
of Sanskrit, Kalady, Kerala.