Over the past month, the Bharatiya Janata Party has laid competing claim to the legacy of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, Home Minister and Deputy Prime Minister in Independent India’s first government headed by Jawaharlal Nehru.
The slugfest has not just led to the appropriation of Patel; it has brought under scrutiny the relationship between Nehru and Patel. The BJP’s charge has been that Patel was denied his due under Nehru, and indeed that the Nehru-Patel relationship was an uneasy one, marked by deep differences and distrust. The presumed historic injustice to Patel is one of the reasons Narendra Modi has undertaken to build the ‘statue of unity’ on the river Narmada — a statue of Patel intended to be the tallest in the world. Speaking at a ceremony to commemorate the Sardar’s 138th birth anniversary, Modi remarked that India would have been a different and better country had Patel been the first Prime Minister in place of Nehru.
For his part, Lal Krishna Advani has quoted from different books to make the claim that there were irreconcilable differences between Nehru and Patel on sending troops into Hyderabad in 1948 and that, at one point, Nehru called Patel a “communalist.” There have also been veiled suggestions from the BJP that Nehru did not pay proper homage to Patel on the latter’s death on December 15, 1950.
The BJP has relied on one set of documents to paint Nehru as something of a villain vis-à-vis Patel. The insinuation is that Nehru constantly quarrelled with Patel and usurped the latter’s rightful place in history. The unstated sub-text is that perhaps Patel himself resented Nehru’s dominance of India and its history.
What is the truth? Nehru and Patel often disagreed, and furiously so. But such was the beauty of the relationship that they rarely kept a secret from each other. They wrote to each other almost every other day, expressing their doubts and differences honestly and openly, and concluding in the end that their mutual affection and regard outweighed any difference they felt with regard to state policy. In their letters, the two great men agonised over the rumours surrounding their relationship and the constant attempts to create a divide between them.
Thus, in the run-up to the 2014 general elections, we are being bombarded by a bizarre reconstruction of our history. Karl Marx had once famously said that Men make history but not under circumstances chosen by them. Given that the circumstances do not favour them, did not favour them since our independence when we adopted our Republic Constitution, the RSS all along has been attempting to create make-believe circumstances that would be favourable for the pursuit of its project of converting India into a rabidly intolerant fascistic `Hindu Rashtra’. Such make-believe circumstances can only be created by distorting the history of the evolution of our syncretic civilization. It is only by doing this that they can project Indian history over the millennia as an uninterrupted glorification of the Hindus, and, Hindus alone. This is central to their ideological foundations for the metamorphosis of secular democratic India into their version of `Hindu Rashtra’.
Such a project of distorting Indian history has many problems when the RSS is confronted with evidences from recorded history. Amongst the many, one area where the RSS finds itself on a terrain that is impossible to defend is its complete absence in the Indian people’s epic struggle for freedom. Even their one time ideologue, Nanaji Deshmukh, had commented in one of his books that the RSS stayed away from the freedom struggle. In fact, their activities of whipping up Hindu communal passions ably mirrored the communal polarisation whipped up by the Muslim League and contributed to the British `divide and rule’ policy.
It has only one claim of a link to the freedom struggle, i.e., V D Savarkar. Eminent historian, sympathetic to Hindutva tendencies, R C Majumdar, documents in his work on Penal Settlements in the Andamans how Savarkar negotiated his release from the Kalapani. It was Savarkar who in his presidential address to the Hindu Mahasabha first put forward that in India there are two nations – Hindu and Islamic. This was full two years before Mohamad Ali Jinnah advanced his two-nation theory and set in motion, ably aided and abetted by the British, the process leading to the partition of India. It was Savarkar who coined the term `Hindutva’ stating that it has little to do with Hindu religion. For the creation of a Hindu nation, he gave the slogan “Hinduise the military, militarise Hindudom” – an inspiration that can be seen in the recent events of Hindutva terror.
The pursuit of this objective, amongst others like sharpening communal polarisation, requires a major re-writing of history. Media reports (June 24, 2013 Hindustan Times) that a former BJP president spoke of changing textbook syllabi, when they come to power at the Centre: “We tried to do this earlier too and will try it again”. The same day Advani said that “The country still awaits the day when Article 370 (with respect to Jammu & Kashmir) would be repealed”.
The current efforts at misappropriating Sardar Patel is part of the overall objective of re-writing Indian history in order to straightjacket it into a monolithic record of the glorification of the “Hindu Nation”. Sardar Patel’s communiqué announcing the ban of the RSS following the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi shows that Sardar Patel was completely antagonistic to the RSS vision.
However, the BJP’s PM aspirant who seems to be in a hurry to `create history’ is seeking to create `make-believe circumstances’ by brazenly distorting history. Apart from trying to project himself as the protégée of Sardar Patel, he claimed at a rally in Patna that takshashila, now part of Pakistan, was in Bihar. He further claimed that Alexander died on the banks of the Ganga in Bihar. Incredible! Subsequently, in an interview, he claimed that Jawaharlal Nehru stayed away from Sardar Patel’s funeral because of irresolvable political differences. He was forced to retract this untruth. Later he had to once again apologise for a grave historical distortion when he claimed that Shyama Prasad Mukherjee died more than two decades earlier than he actually died and that he was a proud son of Gujarat. Whom he intended to refer was revolutionary freedom fighter Shayamaji Krishna Verma who died in Switzerland in 1930s.
Not to be left behind, L K Advani has joined this process of distortion of history. He quotes a book by one MKK Nair that claimed that Nehru called Patel a `communalist’ during the discussions on the police action in the state of Hyderabad. What are the facts of history? Such a cabinet meeting, it is claimed, happened in April 1948. MKK Nair joined the IAS only in 1949. Further, Advani claims that the then Indian Army Chief, Sir Roy Bucher, was asked to resign on grounds that he tipped off the Pakistani Army Chief, another Englishman, over the impending police action in Hyderabad in September 1948. The truth is Bucher continued to be the Army Chief till January 15, 1949 when Gen. Cariappa took over. There are many such distortions of history on L K Advani’s blog.
Not to be left out the new arrival for the BJP but equally if not more rabid communalist Dr. Subramanian Swamy has tried to distort history even farther going back by millenniums, thereby attempting to rock the very foundation of the Dravidian movement. During the launch of the book authored by Rajiv Malhotra “Breaking India” recently in Hyderabad, Dr Swamy said “this theory of Aryan-Dravidian divide was flawed, created and then fostered by the Britishers during the colonial times”. He has said, “Unfortunately, this theory was still being carried forward and used for the political divide in India. Britishers made sure through the use of English language, that we Indian never knew what’s the origin of the word “Dravida”. Dravidian, is not a Tamil word, it is a Sanskrit word, which was invented by or first publicized by Adi Shankara, when he went to Varanasi to debate Mandra Mishra. The first question Mandara Mishra asked Adi Shankara was , Who are you? Adi Shankara replied “I am Dravida Shishu”, Shishu means child, and Dravida means, it is a combination of Tra+Vit, means where three oceans meet. So, it was a regional term. But, Britishers made it a racial term, and used it politically. This even led to the division of interpretation of Ramayana, they said Rama was an Arya, and Ravana was a Dravida. But, Ravana himself was not even a Dravidian, because he was born somewhere near to Noida, in north of India. His wife was born and brought up in Meerut. Ravana heard of Guber in Sri Lanka, so, he went and conquered it. Moreover, race is decided by DNA, and from all the studies in the world, University of Texas, University of Houston and other have come up with study that, DNA of all Indians is same. But, for years and years, and even now, this Aryan- Dravidian theory is been taught by our own historians. But, slowly this theory is being demolished with in India as well. But, this theory need to be completely demolished in all the public sphere”.
So while his counterparts in the Sangh parivar family are engaging with the nationalist movement in distorting recent history to suit their ideological requirements, this Harvard-returned Sholavandan brahmin dares to vow to completely demolish the Aryan-Dravidian theory, Aryan Invasion/Migration theory and historical definition of races in India, established and accepted by numerous scholars all over the world through scientific analysis of material facts. In fact it is not only an academic challenge to Dravidian scholars and students but also a direct confrontation with the Dravidian movement, which would not be taken lying low.
Indeed that is what they are all trying to do- completely distort and demolish history and replace with their own interpretation. However much they may try to distort history, in the pursuit of their project of converting the secular democratic Indian Republic into their concept of a `Hindu Rashtra’, the RSS/BJP must not be allowed to succeed for the sake of the unity and integrity of our country and for advancing the people’s struggles for creating a better secular democratic India with its syncretic civilisation. r
The slugfest has not just led to the appropriation of Patel; it has brought under scrutiny the relationship between Nehru and Patel. The BJP’s charge has been that Patel was denied his due under Nehru, and indeed that the Nehru-Patel relationship was an uneasy one, marked by deep differences and distrust. The presumed historic injustice to Patel is one of the reasons Narendra Modi has undertaken to build the ‘statue of unity’ on the river Narmada — a statue of Patel intended to be the tallest in the world. Speaking at a ceremony to commemorate the Sardar’s 138th birth anniversary, Modi remarked that India would have been a different and better country had Patel been the first Prime Minister in place of Nehru.
For his part, Lal Krishna Advani has quoted from different books to make the claim that there were irreconcilable differences between Nehru and Patel on sending troops into Hyderabad in 1948 and that, at one point, Nehru called Patel a “communalist.” There have also been veiled suggestions from the BJP that Nehru did not pay proper homage to Patel on the latter’s death on December 15, 1950.
The BJP has relied on one set of documents to paint Nehru as something of a villain vis-à-vis Patel. The insinuation is that Nehru constantly quarrelled with Patel and usurped the latter’s rightful place in history. The unstated sub-text is that perhaps Patel himself resented Nehru’s dominance of India and its history.
What is the truth? Nehru and Patel often disagreed, and furiously so. But such was the beauty of the relationship that they rarely kept a secret from each other. They wrote to each other almost every other day, expressing their doubts and differences honestly and openly, and concluding in the end that their mutual affection and regard outweighed any difference they felt with regard to state policy. In their letters, the two great men agonised over the rumours surrounding their relationship and the constant attempts to create a divide between them.
Thus, in the run-up to the 2014 general elections, we are being bombarded by a bizarre reconstruction of our history. Karl Marx had once famously said that Men make history but not under circumstances chosen by them. Given that the circumstances do not favour them, did not favour them since our independence when we adopted our Republic Constitution, the RSS all along has been attempting to create make-believe circumstances that would be favourable for the pursuit of its project of converting India into a rabidly intolerant fascistic `Hindu Rashtra’. Such make-believe circumstances can only be created by distorting the history of the evolution of our syncretic civilization. It is only by doing this that they can project Indian history over the millennia as an uninterrupted glorification of the Hindus, and, Hindus alone. This is central to their ideological foundations for the metamorphosis of secular democratic India into their version of `Hindu Rashtra’.
Such a project of distorting Indian history has many problems when the RSS is confronted with evidences from recorded history. Amongst the many, one area where the RSS finds itself on a terrain that is impossible to defend is its complete absence in the Indian people’s epic struggle for freedom. Even their one time ideologue, Nanaji Deshmukh, had commented in one of his books that the RSS stayed away from the freedom struggle. In fact, their activities of whipping up Hindu communal passions ably mirrored the communal polarisation whipped up by the Muslim League and contributed to the British `divide and rule’ policy.
It has only one claim of a link to the freedom struggle, i.e., V D Savarkar. Eminent historian, sympathetic to Hindutva tendencies, R C Majumdar, documents in his work on Penal Settlements in the Andamans how Savarkar negotiated his release from the Kalapani. It was Savarkar who in his presidential address to the Hindu Mahasabha first put forward that in India there are two nations – Hindu and Islamic. This was full two years before Mohamad Ali Jinnah advanced his two-nation theory and set in motion, ably aided and abetted by the British, the process leading to the partition of India. It was Savarkar who coined the term `Hindutva’ stating that it has little to do with Hindu religion. For the creation of a Hindu nation, he gave the slogan “Hinduise the military, militarise Hindudom” – an inspiration that can be seen in the recent events of Hindutva terror.
The pursuit of this objective, amongst others like sharpening communal polarisation, requires a major re-writing of history. Media reports (June 24, 2013 Hindustan Times) that a former BJP president spoke of changing textbook syllabi, when they come to power at the Centre: “We tried to do this earlier too and will try it again”. The same day Advani said that “The country still awaits the day when Article 370 (with respect to Jammu & Kashmir) would be repealed”.
The current efforts at misappropriating Sardar Patel is part of the overall objective of re-writing Indian history in order to straightjacket it into a monolithic record of the glorification of the “Hindu Nation”. Sardar Patel’s communiqué announcing the ban of the RSS following the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi shows that Sardar Patel was completely antagonistic to the RSS vision.
However, the BJP’s PM aspirant who seems to be in a hurry to `create history’ is seeking to create `make-believe circumstances’ by brazenly distorting history. Apart from trying to project himself as the protégée of Sardar Patel, he claimed at a rally in Patna that takshashila, now part of Pakistan, was in Bihar. He further claimed that Alexander died on the banks of the Ganga in Bihar. Incredible! Subsequently, in an interview, he claimed that Jawaharlal Nehru stayed away from Sardar Patel’s funeral because of irresolvable political differences. He was forced to retract this untruth. Later he had to once again apologise for a grave historical distortion when he claimed that Shyama Prasad Mukherjee died more than two decades earlier than he actually died and that he was a proud son of Gujarat. Whom he intended to refer was revolutionary freedom fighter Shayamaji Krishna Verma who died in Switzerland in 1930s.
Not to be left behind, L K Advani has joined this process of distortion of history. He quotes a book by one MKK Nair that claimed that Nehru called Patel a `communalist’ during the discussions on the police action in the state of Hyderabad. What are the facts of history? Such a cabinet meeting, it is claimed, happened in April 1948. MKK Nair joined the IAS only in 1949. Further, Advani claims that the then Indian Army Chief, Sir Roy Bucher, was asked to resign on grounds that he tipped off the Pakistani Army Chief, another Englishman, over the impending police action in Hyderabad in September 1948. The truth is Bucher continued to be the Army Chief till January 15, 1949 when Gen. Cariappa took over. There are many such distortions of history on L K Advani’s blog.
Not to be left out the new arrival for the BJP but equally if not more rabid communalist Dr. Subramanian Swamy has tried to distort history even farther going back by millenniums, thereby attempting to rock the very foundation of the Dravidian movement. During the launch of the book authored by Rajiv Malhotra “Breaking India” recently in Hyderabad, Dr Swamy said “this theory of Aryan-Dravidian divide was flawed, created and then fostered by the Britishers during the colonial times”. He has said, “Unfortunately, this theory was still being carried forward and used for the political divide in India. Britishers made sure through the use of English language, that we Indian never knew what’s the origin of the word “Dravida”. Dravidian, is not a Tamil word, it is a Sanskrit word, which was invented by or first publicized by Adi Shankara, when he went to Varanasi to debate Mandra Mishra. The first question Mandara Mishra asked Adi Shankara was , Who are you? Adi Shankara replied “I am Dravida Shishu”, Shishu means child, and Dravida means, it is a combination of Tra+Vit, means where three oceans meet. So, it was a regional term. But, Britishers made it a racial term, and used it politically. This even led to the division of interpretation of Ramayana, they said Rama was an Arya, and Ravana was a Dravida. But, Ravana himself was not even a Dravidian, because he was born somewhere near to Noida, in north of India. His wife was born and brought up in Meerut. Ravana heard of Guber in Sri Lanka, so, he went and conquered it. Moreover, race is decided by DNA, and from all the studies in the world, University of Texas, University of Houston and other have come up with study that, DNA of all Indians is same. But, for years and years, and even now, this Aryan- Dravidian theory is been taught by our own historians. But, slowly this theory is being demolished with in India as well. But, this theory need to be completely demolished in all the public sphere”.
So while his counterparts in the Sangh parivar family are engaging with the nationalist movement in distorting recent history to suit their ideological requirements, this Harvard-returned Sholavandan brahmin dares to vow to completely demolish the Aryan-Dravidian theory, Aryan Invasion/Migration theory and historical definition of races in India, established and accepted by numerous scholars all over the world through scientific analysis of material facts. In fact it is not only an academic challenge to Dravidian scholars and students but also a direct confrontation with the Dravidian movement, which would not be taken lying low.
Indeed that is what they are all trying to do- completely distort and demolish history and replace with their own interpretation. However much they may try to distort history, in the pursuit of their project of converting the secular democratic Indian Republic into their concept of a `Hindu Rashtra’, the RSS/BJP must not be allowed to succeed for the sake of the unity and integrity of our country and for advancing the people’s struggles for creating a better secular democratic India with its syncretic civilisation. r
No comments:
Post a Comment