The Reign of Non-History

[anonymus]

@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..

Actually i am glad that you brought this up.

The only reason that i have not posted his DN Jha's rebuttal is because it has been discussed threadbare and soundly trashed in History specific forums and i would have been re posting from that forum.

Why don't you see for yourself.

Bakhtiyar Khilji - Nalanda university - Page 6 - Historum - History Forums

 

[scorpionx]

@anonymus

Of the two Tibetan traditions, the one referred to by me has been given credence not only by Yadava (whom Shourie, in his ignorance, dubs a Marxist!) but also by a number of other Indian scholars like R K Mookerji (Education in Ancient India), Sukumar Dutt (Buddhist Monks and Monasteries of India), S C Vidyabhushana (Medieval School of Indian Logic), Buddha Prakash (Aspects of Indian History and Civilization), and many others. They were all polymaths of unimpeachable academic honesty and integrity. They had nothing to do, even remotely, with Marxism: which is, to Shourie in his bull avatar, a red rag.

Now juxtapose the Tibetan tradition with the contemporary account in the Tabaqat–i-Nasiri of Minhaj-i-Siraj, which Shourie not only misinterprets but also blows out of proportion. Although its testimony has no bearing on my argument about Brahmanical intolerance, a word needs to be said about it so as to expose Shourie’s “false knowledge” - which, as G B Shaw said, is “more dangerous than ignorance.” The famous passage from this text reads exactly as follows:

“He [Bakhtiyar Khalji] used to carry his depredations into those parts and that country until he organized an attack upon the fortified city of Bihar. Trustworthy persons have related on this wise, that he advanced to the gateway of the fortress of Bihar with two hundred horsemen in defensive armour, and suddenly attacked the place. There were two brothers of Farghanah, men of learning, [Nizamu-ud-Din and Samsam-ud-Din] in the service of Muhammad-i-Bakht-yar, and the author of this book [Minhajuddin] met with at Lakhnawati in the year 641 H and this account is from him. These two wise brothers were soldiers among that band of holy warriors when they reached the gateway of the fortress and began the attack at which time Muhammad-i-Bakhtiyar, by the force of his intrepidity, threw himself into the postern of the gateway of the place, and they captured the fortress and acquired great booty. The greater number of inhabitants of that place were Brahmans, and the whole of those Brahmans had their heads shaven; and they were all slain. There were a great number of books there; and, when all these books came under the observation of the Musalmans, they summoned a number of Hindus that they might give them information respecting the import of those books; but the whole of the Hindus were killed. On becoming acquainted (with the contents of the books), it was found that the whole of that fortress and the city was a college, and in the Hindui tongue, they call a college Bihar” (Tabaqat-i-Nasiri, tr. H G Raverty, Calcutta, vol 1, 1881, pp.551-52).

The above account mentions the fortress of Bihar as the target of Bakhtiyar’s attack. The fortified monastery which Bakhtiyar captured was “known as Audand-Bihar or Odandapura-vihara” (Odantapuri in Biharsharif, then known simply as Bihar). This is the view of many historians but, most importantly, of Jadunath Sarkar, the high priest of communal historiography in India (History of Bengal, vol. 2, Dacca, 1948, pp.3-4). Minhaj does not refer to Nalanda at all: he merely speaks of the ransacking of the “fortress of Bihar” (hisar-i-Bihar). But how can Shourie be satisfied unless Bakhtiyar is shown to have sacked Nalanda? Since Bakhtiyar was leading plundering expeditions in the region of Magadha, Shourie thinks that Nalanda must have been destroyed by him - and, magically, he finds ’evidence’ in an account which does not even speak of the place. Thus an important historical testimony becomes the victim of his anti-Muslim prejudice. In his zeal, he fudges and concocts historical evidence and ignores the fact that Bakhtiyar did not go to Nalanda from Bihar (Biharsharif). Instead, he proceeded to Nadia in Bengal through the hills and jungles of the region of Jharkhand, which, incidentally, finds first mention in an inscription of AD 1295 (Comprehensive History of India, vol. IV, pt. I, p.601). I may add that his whole book, Eminent Historians, from which the article under reference is excerpted, abounds in instances of his cavalier attitude to historical evidence.

It is neither possible nor necessary to deny that the Islamic invaders conquered parts of Bihar and Bengal and destroyed the famous universities in the region. But any one associating Bakhtiyar Khalji with the destruction and burning of the university of Nalanda would be guilty of gross academic dishonesty. Certainly week-end historians like Shourie are always free to falsify historical data, but this has nothing to do with serious history, which is always true to evidence.

India: Historian D.N. Jha's Reply to Arun Shourie - South Asia Citizens Web

 

[INDIC]

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.

Afridis said to have origin from Huns and other Pashtuns tribes have origin for Huns and Scythians. But in any case they were not the original Gandharians but tribesmen on the outskirts of Gandhara, Hinduism was once practised in places like Paktia and Paktita in Afghanistan. BTW, the Pashtuns always claims their ancestors never followed Hinduism.

 

[anonymus]

Afridis said to have origin from Huns and other Pashtuns tribes have origin for Huns and Scythians. But in any case they were not the original Gandharians but tribesmen on the outskirts of Gandhara, Hinduism was once practised in places like Paktia and Paktita in Afghanistan. BTW, the Pashtuns always claims their ancestors never followed Hinduism.

Well,

That is expected.

But in reality, at least some Pashtun tribes were Hindus and others ( even those of Turkish ancestory ) were Buddhists.

 

[INDIC]

Well,
That is expected.
But in reality, at least some Pashtun tribes were Hindus and others ( even those of Turkish ancestory ) were Buddhists.

The Hindushahis were Janjua Rajputs. Genetically Pashtuns have small amount of South Asian ancestry, so its possible they mixed with some Indic races.

 

[Contrarian]

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.

The only thing I am unable to get properly is why do some Indian Hindus do this? Why do they tamper with history to present Hindus in the worst light, discount Hindu and Budhist achievements and act as apologists for the destruction brought by various Muslim invaders and rulers ?

 

[scorpionx]

Actually i am glad that you brought this up.

The only reason that i have not posted his DN Jha's rebuttal is because it has been discussed threadbare and soundly trashed in History specific forums and i would have been re posting from that forum.

Why don't you see for yourself.

Bakhtiyar Khilji - Nalanda university - Page 6 - Historum - History Forums

I will go through the arguments and counter arguments thoroughly. Thanks for giving the link. But Jha's reply to Shourie points out one major fact that in spite of being a "Marxist" historian he did not deny that Buddhist monasteries were destructed by Turko-Afghan invaders in 13th Century. In fact he agreed on this fact quite clearly. What he emphasized that Nalanda might not be the one that was destructed by Khilji. How it should be seen as distorting history or doctoring India's past when he clearly accepted the invasion and subsequent destruction and loots?

Secondly, he is saying that he is not trying to prove myths as history as it is being claimed by Shourie. What he says is myths and other traditional beliefs gain strength in time and becomes part of collective memory of a community. No body is selling miracles or myths here. His purpose of his speech was different and not Islamic Invasion of Bengal, as it has been interpreted by Shourie.

Thirdly, Jha mentions about historians like Jadunath Sarkar, Sukumar Dutt and R K Mukherjee, unfortunately none of them have anything to do with Marxism!! Shourie might differ with these respected historians in terms of their historiography (historians do differ with each other); But clubbing them with a political group, calling them Islam's sympathizer and pseudo secular with out contesting their arguments with intellectual stamina and academic discourse is nothing but moral bankruptcy from Shourie and other right wing historians.

 

[anonymus]

@scorpionx

Since i was posting in first person, i used you as a prop for commie bashing. I know that while you are a leftist,but you most probably are not a retarded commie.Calling you commie was a figure of speech ( since you posted opening post ).

The argument of objectivity forwarded JNU chaap Leftist Historians falls flat as they are the most biased historians; and delibrate willful distortions have been state policy since Indira Gandhi's time.

If you go through that whole thread, you would find that even Soviet Historians have been critical of historical distortions done by Indian leftist Historians.

 

[Indrani]

The only thing I am unable to get properly is why do some Indian Hindus do this? Why do they tamper with history to present Hindus in the worst light, discount Hindu and Budhist achievements and act as apologists for the destruction brought by various Muslim invaders and rulers ?

Stockholm Syndrome. Most of these Hindus are from those parts of India which were ruled by Muslims for long period of time. So like the victims of abuse who re-lives his nightmare time and again these Hindus want to recreate those situations to go through it again and again.

The strongest protests to these attempts come from those parts of the country which have escaped that fate. So you do not see the Tamil or the Maharashtrian (to a large part) apologetic about their Hindu past.

 

[Contrarian]

Stockholm Syndrome. Most of these Hindus are from those parts of India which were ruled by Muslims for long period of time. So like the victims of abuse who re-lives his nightmare time and again these Hindus want to recreate those situations to go through it again and again.

The strongest protests to these attempts come from those parts of the country which have escaped that fate. So you do not see the Tamil or the Maharashtrian (to a large part) apologetic about their Hindu past.

Indeed it is mostly Bengali, Bihari or UP scholars who come up with these tampered accounts of history and attempts to whitewash the Islamic period of India.

The question is how and why have these scholars garnered an extraordinary space in Indian society - how and why is it that their works are published by the Government as school textbooks and generally given name and fame compared to other authors with different viewpoints. The Left seems to have successfully captured the public space of literature and history.

 

[anonymus]

Stockholm Syndrome

Probably No,

It is fidelity to one's ideology. History as a discipline is only practiced in ultra left boroughs.

+

Since Indira Gandhi's time, deliberate historical distortion has been a state policy.

 

[possumlot]

Probably No,

It is fidelity to one's ideology. History as a discipline is only practiced in ultra left boroughs.

+

Since Indira Gandhi's time, deliberate historical distortion has been a state policy.

Distortion of history has nothing to do with Indira Gandhi ....its the norm in the world. History is always written by the winners.

I do not seen any ideological leaning in the people who you call leftist, they are more anti-Hindu than pro-communists. All I see is intellectual dishonesty and prejudices masquerading as ideology.

 

[Indrani]

Indeed it is mostly Bengali, Bihari or UP scholars who come up with these tampered accounts of history and attempts to whitewash the Islamic period of India.

The question is how and why have these scholars garnered an extraordinary space in Indian society - how and why is it that their works are published by the Government as school textbooks and generally given name and fame compared to other authors with different viewpoints. The Left seems to have successfully captured the public space of literature and history.

The Bengalis at least had a lead over the other parts of the country in terms of taking to English education given the duration of British rule it was subjected to. So no surprise they were heavily represented in academics. The Biharis and UPites just had location advantage given their proximity to Delhi. The North Indian bias worked in their favor for some time period at least and they consolidated their hold on most govt institutions.

 

[anonymus]

Distortion of history has nothing to do with Indira Gandhi ....its the norm in the world. History is always written by the winners.

I do not seen any ideological leaning in the people who you call leftist, they are more anti-Hindu than pro-communists. All I see is intellectual dishonesty and prejudices masquerading as ideology.

I was stating the same.

The Indira gandhi point was regarding a circular from 1976 stating that NCERT should downplay Muslim invaders and should always show them in positive light. Before that, NCERT at least theoretically tried to be neutral.

 

[Indrani]

Probably No,

It is fidelity to one's ideology. History as a discipline is only practiced in ultra left boroughs.

+

Since Indira Gandhi's time, deliberate historical distortion has been a state policy.

Even taking to leftist ideology needs a reason. Why would Hindus who are intrinsically individualistic take on to leftist philosophies? Why is it that RSS preaches against communism, but these educated Northies always talk in terms of class divisions? All leftist philosophies are similar in nature to Abrahamic religions except for the theist part of it.

It is not like those belonging to the ultra right wing were richer than those belong to WB or UP.

Distortion of history has nothing to do with Indira Gandhi ....its the norm in the world. History is always written by the winners.

I do not seen any ideological leaning in the people who you call leftist, they are more anti-Hindu than pro-communists. All I see is intellectual dishonesty and prejudices masquerading as ideology.

What we were looking at it is why they are so hostile to their own people and their own history. If they have to be opportunists, would they not be better served by pandering to the majorities than minorities?