Eminent Historian a Review

Eminent Historians by Arun Shourie.

After reading 118 pages in this book one finds little to applaud the author. This book is written in the same vain as his journalistic writings. His target is ICHR (Indian Congress of Historical Research) for all un-completed jobs as if writing history is some instant cooking noodles. Every history is too complicated and crowded with contradictions and they do not allow being charectarised as positive or negative. The charge is that the historians staffing ICHR are bunch dishonest persons, motivated to make money at public expense. He himself admits that the amount used or spent by ICHR are not comparable to the scams that are getting into media almost everyday. In one of the chapters, Shourie concentrates his derisive criticism exclusively on some selected passages from West BengalGovernment circular on history textbooks. According to this, there are advices to delete and or alter texts motivated to avoid any characterization of communal enmity between Hindus and Muslims. Shourie says that such matters are kept out of textbooks ostensibly to protect young minds from being influenced by communalism and the resultant tensions and or violence. The author argues against such a policy. According to him, the misdeeds of the Muslim rulers against Hindus and other religions should be thought in the schools. In this connection, one thing comes to mind. The BJP rulers in Maharashtra trotted an alibi that divulging the Srikrishna Commission report to the public will result in inflaming communal feelings and therefore disturb peace in the society maintained so far. The fidelity to tell truth that Mr.Arun Shourie projected in his present work, did not make him advocate for the truth contained in Srikrishna Commission report to be made public. Even today, he is silent on this suppression of the report by the government in which his party is associated. This shows that his advocacy of freedom is too selective and biased towards one community alone.

The author was quoting passages from historian Satish Chandra’s history textbook for high school in a derisive language. He gives no authentic citation from sources independent of the ruling parties but from ‘evidence’ collected by another communalist ‘historian’ Sitaram Goel. He also tries to make use of writings and speeches from Dr. Ambedkar completely forgetting or keeping them hidden that unto the very recent past, communalists of the SS and Paivar were sprouting venom on the same Ambedkar for his writings and speeches condemning Hinduism. The Maharashtragovernment manned by SS and BJP combine succeeded to keep the published works of Dr. Ambedkar out of reach to the public. The earlier Congress government was publishing the works. There was a violent agitation headed by the two opposing naming of Nagpur University to Dr. Ambedkar University. Of late, they realized that opposing Ambedkar is alienating the dalit and poor from them. Only political expediency made them to recognise Ambedkar for reasons other than merit. Still there are pockets from where such communal opposition to Ambedkar comes out. As for the West Bengal example of ‘re-writing history’ books it is nothing in comparison to the ‘re-writing’ of history undertaken by the BJP headed government in UP and Rajasthan. One cannot expect Mr. Shourie pontificating against these concoctions. They say that the whole world was Hindu before the spread of Christianity and Islam.

While Shourie praises his communalist teacher Sitaram Goel for his meticulous collection of so called writings from Muslim period, he has refrained himself from inspecting so called historical writings in the same way as his own ‘Eminent Historians’. Ofcourse when communalists write history there need no confirmation from other independent sources. When those ‘historians’ claim that during the Muslim period, so many temples were destroyed from North to South, from West to East and they are supposed to include the famous Ujjain temple, the Puri temple, the Rathambore temple etc. they cite the elegies written by the court historians of those Muslim rulers. There are no mentions of any archeological findings on the destruction of so many temples of yore. It should have been an obligation on any historian dealing in remote pasts. We all know court historians of ancient period’s eulogized kings in Sanskrit writings. If idols taken out of Hindu temples were broken and used as stepping stones in mosques here and abroad there will be enough archeological remains that could support such claims. The court history should not be taken for granted.

The quotations from Swami Vivekananda and Ambedkar are entirely misleading. At no time, the Swami justified or rationalized the communal practices on the part of Hindu militants or fanatics. Dr. Ambedkar all through his life opposed Hinduism as a blatant manifestation of Brahmin jingoism. He at places compared it to fascism. Vivekananda wanted a complete reform and transformation of the Hindu religion and customs and for this he established or helped to establish a new order called Ramakrishna Mission, which today is not considered as traditional Hindu though they teach ancient Hindu scriptures like Veda and Upanishads. As for Arabindo, he led a completely new order that also is not accepted fully into the mainstream Hinduism. When it is to his liking Shourie quotes Dr. Ambedkar against the “eminent historians” for instance in case of Muslim rule. However, he studiously avoids quoting Ambedkar against K.M.Srimali on beef eating in ancient times. Dr. Ambedkar has quoted chapter and verse from several vedic literature including Rigveda to say that beaf was eaten in those times. The moderator or coordinator of the program Apki Adalat and those who challenged Srimali did not look into Ambedkar´s works. At the least one expected Shourie to have read the works of Ambedkar as a Magsaysay award winning journalist before asserting himself that there are no references in Vedic literature to beef eating before branding Srimali as a charlatan. Srimali at his age may not be remembering all those references listed in Ambedkar´s writings. So who is practicing suggeso veri supresso falcy?

Arun Shourie who at one time fulminated against Indira Gandhi for declaration of emergency as fascism in reality, continues to be the avid spokesman for Hindu fascism as very well documented and characterized by Dr.Ambedkar,

in the same volume from which he quotes portions against the “eminent historians.

It is beneath one to go on reading Arun Shourie . half way through it is clear that he through his charges and assertions not only tries to debunk Marxist historians but Marxism as an ideology and philosophy. His only evidence is distorting and quoting them out of context.

However, he cannot get away from the facts that mainly economies govern almost every thing. All measurements are based on the economies of individuals, society, state etc. he cannot refute the fact all progress, economic, social and others go through lower to higher, simple to complex through conflict between opposites. his prejudices and mental blocks are exhibited all through the pages of this book. When derides the Marxist historiography, he did not look back and pause that the same descriptions and epithets can be hurled at him and his writings. He has just used his having got the Magsaysay award to churn out a lot of treatise that are just prejudices. When he cited the comments of Dr.Kosambi on the context of Gita, he hides that Dr.Kosambi is not explaining the teachings of Gita but the historical context in which it is given. The contradictory teachings of Gita were analysed. Shourie is too abusive to say, what is history and the discipline needed to train oneself to be a historian. He interprets all critical writings through his imperatives. He did not accept that there are no absolutes in history and it is more firmly reflected in Indian history as well. He seems to think and claim that Hindu history is some thing different than that of universal history. It was not a discovery of Marx or Marxists that all history is the history of struggles between classes.

According to Shourie there were no tribals or any original inhabitants in India. According to him the description of people as Aryan, Dravidian and adi-vasi are of foreign origin but he firmly defends himself to be a Hindu a nomenclature that itself is foreign Arabic. Even the Smriti texts describe the people of India in different names having possessed of different duties, marking them apart from caste Hindus. In ancient times there was no one word describing all the people ofIndia.

History it seems developed and developing according to unstated Hindu tenets since, it is a product of some superior wisdom of the ancient seers or Rishies. The knew, what God wanted and they in turn disseminated the commands of the God. Shourie subtly appropriated the findings of Harappa and Mohanjo Daro civilizations without giving any firm evidence. He discounts the battles described in Rig Veda as a concoction of Marxian historians in opposition to Hindu religion. He without ceremony claimed that all ancient scientific developments are Hindu disregarding the facts that there were mutual give and take between all ancient civilizations. Although the astronomer Aryabhata observed that the it is the earth that goes around the sun and not otherwise. However, how many of his Hindu contemporaries and all those later generations accepted this discovery and followed it with further findings? The discovery was hidden from the masses of people by other learned men. They even did not mention it in their writings. Instead of astronomy, the mumbo-jumbos of astrology sways the Hindus in all their activities even today. Rahukalam, Gulika kalam, Yamakandakam, Soolam and such like could be noted in all published almanacs and calendars. That is our Hindu tradition and legacy and not Aryabhata’s scientific pursuits. While he misquotes and misleads about Dr.Kosambi on his stringent criticism of the communalists, he fails to inform us that his new found idol Dr.B.R.Ambedkar was more severe in his criticism of Hindu religion, its scriptures, its heritage and legacy. When he castigates people with Marxist leanings on the basis of that “GOD THAT FAILED” for their repudiation of Hindutva communalism, he has to keep himself silent about the thoughts and writings of Ambedkar except his outright criticism of Muslim rule. So he wrote a tome denigrating Ambedkar on his stellar role in drafting the Indian Constitution. According to Shourie the bureaucrat B.N.Rao, ICS was the real author of our democratic constitution. Even so it was Ambedkar who steered the Constitution Assembly to adopt the Constitution all the way. So that is Shourie telling his truth. Recklessness, thou name is Shourie!

He may even deny that his first major critical writings on the emergency regime of Indira Gandhi was first published in a magazine named “Seminar” a monthly from Delhi, owned and edited by Ramesh Thapper, who was prominent as a committed leftist and edited a weekly journal, “Cross Roads” when Communist party’s own journal came to be closed in Bombay after the congress of the CPI in 1948.

When he questions critical passages about Hindu fundamentalism and the consequent communalism, Shourie makes out that the critic’s criticism is on Hindu religion and its followers. It is the most dishonest canard propagated by him in almost all his writings. His evidence in support of condemning communism is that all of them upheld Soviet Union and its activities uncritically. At the same time he ignore the ant-fascist stand of the communists and all other leftists. Shourie is dishonest in not divulging in his writings that the RSS his own spiritual head is enamored of Nazism of Hitler, Mussolini and Franco. The RSS itself is modeled in uniform and weapon (lathies in case of RSS) wielding Nazi troupe parading in open spaces. The writings of the RSS bigwigs as well as the Hindu Mahasabha never fought against British imperialism in its days. They lined up with British during the quit India agitation in 1942-43 just as communists but for differing reasons. Even today people like Thakre of Shiva Sena has only praise to Hitler and the Nazies.

Shourie will not accept that one of his early forerunner was the assassin of Mahatma Gandhi, Nathuram Godse a high class Brahmin by birth and brought in the traditions of Hindu fundamentalism.

While deprecating Marxist historians for their contention that as of today the Aryan immigration is more real than otherwise, has deliberately kept himself away from mentioning that the Aryans were a race from artic, in Tilak’s historical study “Artic Home of the Aryans”. This book was written and published much earlier than any so called Marxist started writing history. Dishonesty seems to be a stock in trade with Shourie. He uses a slight of hand trick in dealing with texts from Marxist historians. When he quotes from them, he does not allow the quote to speak themselves as to whether they constitute any offence that he attributes to them. He goes on interpreting and commenting on those quotes, by slipping in his own words in between and twisting the meanings to his characterizations. It is a degrading experience to read them. At one point he quotes from a Pakistani tract and makes out that the understanding is at variance or some are in keeping with the Marxist reading of the history. He concedes the fact that reading of history between different schools might carry similarities, which does not signify any other than different views.

When Shourie questions the conduct of the communists during 1942 quit India movement, he puts a mantle of a nationalist who took part in the movement. But it is history that neither there forefathers in Hindu Mahasabha or RSS participated in the movement. Shourie tries to appropriate quit India movement led by Mahatma as a Hindu movement. So his love for truth in telling history stands exposed. He is a charlatan pretending to be very intellectual. Surely, he seems to be popular with and approvingly quoted and referred by all Hindu communalist outfits. When he quotes national leaders against communists, one might suspect that he is a part of those leaders. But the fact is that he is an un-repented foe of all national leaders unless they show some fringe communalism. Sardar Patel, Rajendra Prasad, Gandhiji are quoted only if they can be interpreted in favour of Hindu and against Islam. Shourie’s own ideological senior Nathuram Godse found Mahatma as an evil, a concealed Mussalman fit to be killed for the safety of Hinduism itself. Shourie’s book is a rehash of all the arguments and theories propagated by Hindu fundamentalists of yore from Savarkar, Golwalkar and others. Savarkar was not crude and irrational compared to Golwalkar or Shourie. Sure, there were some in the national movement who were Hindu communal but were very restrained and sophisticated in their sayings.

Todays Shouries are drunk with power that came through the BJP led coalition at the centre. Shourie is an avatar of Herman Goaring the Nazi propagandist. Repeating lies and half truths are natural to their propaganda schemes. Shourie is just following those foot trips. All his arguments in favour of a Hindu interpreting Indian history, were successfully and satisfactorily refuted by historians of all creeds during the days of struggle for independence and in the succeeding decades. Why did Shourie take up subject today? There is only one reason that all the communal propaganda unleashed so far has not shaken the foundation of secularism in Indian masses. He is trying to separate secularists and Marxists and blame the later for distorting history. According to Shourie denigration of Marxism automatically down grade secularism itself. When we read this book one might feel that the struggle against British rule was Hindu origin and others had little or no part in it.

The way in which Arun Shourie explains his Hindu position the time may not be too far when they will encounter very extreme reaction from other communities. There will be demands for a second partition. More Pakistan may become necessary in the future. How the Hindu communalists will face that situation? Can they pack all the Muslims, Christians and other religious people to some other part of the world and how? Will it be accepted as a solution by world communities? Do they think that minorities could be silenced permanently, in our own country and there will be no reacton from anywhere abroad? It looks like maddest reasoning on our part to envisage such futures. Only time will tell.

I feel sorry for repeating harsh words in relation to Shourie. They came due my sensitivity to the upbeat dishonesty displayed by him in this book.

K.N.Krishnan.

March 1999.