Author: Arun Shourie
Publication: India
Connect
Date: September 1, 1998.
As we have seen, the
explicit part of the Circular issued by the West Bengal Government in 1989 in
effect was that there must be no negative reference to Islamic rule in India.
Although these were the very things which contemporary Islamic writers
celebrated, there must be absolutely no reference to the destruction of the
temples by Muslim rulers, to the forcible conversion of Hindus, to the numerous
other restrictions which were placed on the Hindu population. Along with the
Circular, the passages which had to be removed were listed and substitute
passages were specified. The passages which were ordered to be deleted
contained, if anything, a gross understatement of the facts. On the other hand,
passages which were sought to be inserted contained total falsehoods: that by
paying jazia Hindus could lead "normal lives" under the Islamic
rulers!
A closer study of the
textbooks which are today being used under the authority of the West Bengal
Government shows a much more comprehensive, a much more diabolic design than
that of merely erasing the cruelties of Islamic rule.
Of course, there is no
reference to those cruelties. But in addition, the growth of the Aligarh
Movement and its objectives, the role of Sir Syed in founding this movement,
the role of the Muslim League, its close association with the British, its
espousal of the Two Nation doctrine -- all these are almost entirely erased in
the half a dozen books which teachers in Calcutta have been so kind as to send.
It was only in one book,
Sabhyatar Itihash by Dr. Atul Chandra Ray, Prantik, 1998, for Class VIII, that
there was a reference to the Muslim League, the Lahore Resolution, the Two
Nation theory, and Jinnah's "Direct Action". Even in this book the
only reference to Sir Syed Ahmad was one projecting him as a great, progressive
religious reformer: "All his life he struggled against blind faith and
tradition, conventional rituals, practices and ignorance."
That he founded the Aligarh
Movement, that he was the original proponent of the Two Nation theory, that he
exhorted Muslims to stay away from the Congress, that he wrote essays followed
by books followed by essays to establish in the eyes of the British how loyal
Muslims had been through the 1857 Uprising, how loyal they were and would
always be to the British because of their nature and their religion, that he
gave very special "interpretations" to passages from the Qur'an to
establish that it was the religious duty of Muslims to support and stand by the
British rulers -- to the point that if the British asked them to eat pork, they
were in religious-duty bound to do so in good cheer : not a word on any of
this.
Similarly, while Ram Mohan
Roy is mentioned, while Keshab Chandra Sen -- in whom Max Muller had seen such
hope of Christianizing India! -- is mentioned, while Devendra Nath Tagore is
mentioned in this "History of Civilization", Bankim Chandra is not
mentioned ! After all, for the constituency which our secular Communists have
been wooing, Bankim Chandra, being the author of Bande Matram, of Ananda Math,
is anathema. Many would think it natural that as such "Histories of World
Civilization" are written in and for Bengal, Bengali personages --
including K. C. Sen! -- should figure more prominently than reformers and
leaders from outside Bengal. But even they would be surprised -- though you
would not expect me to be surprised! -- by what the teachers point out in
regard to the most widely used textbook : that while Swami Vivekananda gets one
line, Karl Marx gets forty two!
In regard to our religion,
the trick is threefold. The textbooks denigrate religion, attributing to it the
evils which it serves their purpose to highlight. Second, in each of these
instances the examples they give are linked by them to Hinduism. Third, among
religions, Islam is always presented as the one, progressive, emancipatory
religion. Of course, the final emancipation comes in the form of Soviet
Revolution of 1917!
Itihash o' Bhugol, Pratham
Bhag, West Bengal Shiksha Adhikar, Calcutta, 1993 is a book for Class III. It
has the customary section on "Vyaktigat Sampatti o' Das Pratha" and
it sets out the customary Marxist exposition. The emergence of two classes,
rich and poor, is attributable to personal property and the profit motive....;
to augment its growth, one class of society fights another class....; some lose
out their property; others grab everything of theirs'....; those who lose out
are made prisoners and employed as labourers; they become slaves; they are
absolute paupers....; those who make them work like this become their
malik....; gradually those maliks, without working, start enjoying the fruits
of the labour of slaves....; thus society gets divided into rich and poor,
owners and slaves; the rich and owners and craftsmen class of people start
fleecing these slaves; not only are the latter denied their dues, they are also
subjected to atyachar....; sometimes these poor and these slaves used to rebel
when they could no longer bear the atyachar; to discipline them the rich
created law, police and courts.... A proper preparation of the Class III child
for abiding by law!
On the next page this
account is merged into the account of "rituals and ceremonies of
society." The illustration on the page shows Hindu pundits around a fire
with the caption "Rishis performing Yajna". Having described the emergence
of two classes, the oppression of one class and its being pushed into becoming
slave labour, having described law, police and courts as instruments of this
oppression, the textbook now tells the Class III student "these priests
devised and got busy in creating laws and rituals for worship. That is how
scriptures were written.
And they started teaching
the children from these scriptures, and they themselves became the teachers.
Gradually they established themselves at the top of the social ladder. That is
how they became leaders of society. And they became the allies of those who
were ruling the world." Not just the usual Marxist clap-trap, the Marxist
rendition of the Macaulay-design: make them ashamed of the three things they
revere -- their Gods, their scriptures, their language, Sanskrit; and make them
hate the one class which has been charged with the task of continuing their
religion and culture.
The theme is continued in
and the association of Hinduism with everything evil is deepened in the textbook,
Itihash o' Bhugol, Part II (West Bengal Vidyalaya Shiksha Adhikar, 1995,
Calcutta), meant for the Class IV students. On page 10 the standard account is
given – one which has been called into serious question by current scholarship.
Aryans come from the North West.... They institute four castes, the Shudras are
consigned to be the lowest caste. They were the original inhabitants of this
land, of dark complexion.... No right to education.... That is on page 10.
On page 17 we learn of the
great emancipatory event. Mohammed is born. He establishes Islam.... It creates
a great civilization, a civilization educationally, culturally advanced. It
establishes a vast Empire -- but because of fighting in various parts this
Empire yields to the emergence of different states. Two pages later again:
Mohammed is born...., a great Mahapurush...., his religion Islam means
"Peace". He taught all to give alms to the poor, and to pay the
worker his legitimate due. He taught, do not cause pain or suffering to slaves,
do not take interest on loans. He stopped idolatry. These are the principal
doctrines of Mohammed. Many accepted Mohammed's religion.... And then the
insinuation: "All great men have taught peace..... but people have
forgotten their message and are quarreling and fighting. The rich instead of
helping the poor, duped them, and added to their own wealth. They indulge in
loot, blood-letting in the name of religion. When Jainism and Buddhism spread
in India, the Brahmin pundits saw danger. They thought that if men did not
follow the rituals, they may not obey and care for them. Therefore, on the
pretext of saving Hindu religion and to maintain their hold on society, they
became desperate. They were helped by many kings. Thus the influence of Jainism
and Buddhism declined and the influence of Hinduism increased." That is on
page 20.
On pages 25 and 26 this
superimposition is carried further. The standard Marxist "thesis" is
once again driven into the child. Peasants exploited.... surplus
appropriated.... his cattle, land expropriated ....suffering.... progressive
immiserisation day by day.... and then, "in the name of God, the pundits
extracted gifts for puja and festivals. The pundits became oppressive and began
living off the labour of others, becoming exploiters and oppressors. They were
helped by kings and landlords. Shudras, slaves and the poor suffer most from
religious persecution. This is how the stratification of society between high
and low started. Shudras became untouchables but there was no restriction on
exploiting their services and every excuse was good enough for the men of
higher castes to exploit and persecute the Shudras.... The upper caste men used
to kill off Shudras and wipe out entire villages on any excuse
whatsoever."
And there is an illustration
on the page to reinforce the message into the child's mind. Captioned, Dharmiya
Utpidan, "Religious Persecution", it shows a man in a bush-shirt,
flogging a poor person with a whip -- in the foreground is a Brahmin, in a
dhoti, with a chutia, a menacing frown, directing him to do so.
By predictable contrast,
Itihash (Prachin), West Bengal Shiksha Parishad, 1994, on page 94 gives an
illustration of the ruins of Nalanda, it says how important these seats of
learning were. But it is studiously silent on who it was that destroyed them!
After all, alluding to that would violate the Circular!
The Class III textbook,
Itihash o' Bhugol, Pratham Bhag, at page 32, teaches the child, "With the
emergence of personal property one section has been depriving the other. The
differences between rich and poor have grown. Suffering has been created. The
downtrodden have lost all their rights. They have been subjected to many
indignities. Even now people are killing each other, even now a man exploits a
fellow-being, even now there are wars, battles. If peace ever comes to this
earth, if exploitation and oppression are stopped, if every man can enjoy equal
happiness and peace, then how wonderful this earth would become."
This pattern -- of sowing
anger against the state of things and attributing that condition to the
entities the Communists want to target -- continues from one year to the next.
Itihash, Part III, (West Bengal Shiksha Adhikar, 1996), after giving the same
sequence and "theses" of exploitation, of division of society, of
religion as a handmaiden of exploitation, turns to "the emergence of new
consciousness". An exploitative order.... Brahmins wielding great
influence.... Those of the working class, of Shudras pushed down.... no rights
or dignity.... Shudras not even to perform religious rituals....
Exploitation.... Rebellion of Christian slaves.... Spartacus.... Shakes the
very foundation of the Roman Empire.... After 600 years of Christ, a new
religious creed that every man has equal rights, this religious creed was
preached by Hazrat Mohammed.... Ideas of great men abandoned.... Exploitation
continues. At last! Lenin, the Bolshevik Party.... "This is how the common
man's revolt took place in November 1917 and an exploitation-less
[shoshan-mukt] society of the working class was established. Tagore visited
Russia in 1930 and said that if he had not visited Russia, he would have missed
out on the most sacred place of pilgrimage...." The
Chinese Revolution.... The
Industrial Revolution in England.... Proprietors expropriate.... Labour is
progressively immiserised.... Country becomes rich but is controlled by a few;
the rest sink into misery, getting hardly anything, not even two square meals a
day.... And then, on page 32, the Russian Revolution: "In November 1917
before the end of the First World War, the workers and peasants of the Russian
Empire led by Lenin and his Bolshevik Party staged the Revolution and uprooted
the Czarist Empire and thus established the first exploitation-less
[shoshan-mukt] rule of Workers and Peasants in Soviet Russia...."
And then the Second World
War: Hitler, Japan and Italy combined. Japan also was very greedy and
ambitious, and planned to set up an Empire in Asia. The Axis came into conflict
with "Britain, France and the American imperialists." "The
issue," it tells the student, "was who will exploit and plunder the
world. That is how the Second World War started...." Bengal Famine.... In
1941 Germany attacked Soviet Russia. The Russian people fought to defend the
Motherland and finally defeated Hitler's Germany. Bombing of Hiroshima and
Nagasaki.... After the end of the Second World War, the movement for freedom in
colonies became vigorous.
Like this book, Sabhyatar
Itihash, "The History of Civilization," 1998, also presents the Russian
Revolution as the culmination of that evolution. A remarkable, comprehensive
revolution.... While these books are published in 1995, 1998 etc., there is not
a word in them about the purges under Stalin, about the fact that under him at
least 28 million Soviet citizens were killed, nor of the fact that close to 60
million were killed under Maoist rule in China, there is not a word of the
slave labour camps of these regimes. And, of course, there is not a word about
hat has happened to the Soviet Union, to Eastern Europe since then, nor about
the leap which China has taken to abandon the bankrupt Communist economic
system.
Hence the design is not
just what was set out in that Circular – to erase the evil that Islamic rulers
heaped upon India and Indians. It is to attribute evil to the religion of our
country, Hinduism; it is to present Islam as the great progressive force which
arose; it is to lament the fact that humanity did not heed the teachings of
progressive men like Mohammed -- till the "remarkable and
comprehensive" Russian Revolution of 1917!
To do anything but swallow
and vomit this design, even to document it, is to be communal, chauvinist,
fascist!
***************************************************
Author: Arun Shourie
Publication: India
Connect
Date: Sept 7, 1998
How fulsome they have been
in commending each other -- the patrons and subalterns!
First the significance of Arif
Qandhari's Tarikh-i-Akbari: it confirms what we know from Abul Fazl's Akbar
Nama, says the eminent historian, it furnishes information we did not have
earlier. He then recalls what has been done in regard to Qandhari's history by
scholars already: "The Tarikh-i-Akbari has been excellently edited and
annotated by Muinuddin Nadvi, Azhar Ali Dehlawi and Imtiaz Ali Arshi." And
so, the need of the hour : "What it [ the Tarikh-i-Akbari ] now needed was
a full-scale English translation." This pressing need, at last fulfilled:
"This has been provided by Dr. Tasneem Ahmad in a very competent manner,
aiming at faithful accuracy and at a critical assessment of the information
here received by comparing it with that offered by other sources."
Not just that. This most
eminent of historians writes: "The publication of Dr. Tasneem Ahmad's
translation is a notable contribution to the National celebration of the 450th
Anniversary of Akbar's birth. I feel confident that it would reinforce the
interest in Akbar's age widespread among those who have a care for the long
process of the creation of a composite culture and a unity that together
constitute what is India."
Not just the needs of
history, therefore, those of secularism, of unity based on a composite culture
too fulfilled! Such fulsome commendation from the very eminent, Irfan Habib
himself in his Foreword to the book. And don't miss the description of India --
just the composite culture and unity which it has taken a long process to
create! The unity of course being nothing but a manifestation of, and totally
dependent on that composite culture! So, composite culture it is.
The compliments duly
returned: "The first and foremost [sic.]," writes Tasneem Ahmad,
"I express my profound sense of gratitude, very personal regards and
respects to Professor Irfan Habib, who encouraged and guided me at every stage
of the work. In spite of his very pressing engagements and pre-occupation, he
ungrudgingly spared his valuable time to examine with care every intricate
problem, arising out [sic.] during the course of work."
The debt to another of
these eminences not forgotten either: "My debt to my revered
teacher," writes Tasneem Ahmad, "Professor Satish Chandra is
incalculable. He took great pains in reading and correcting the work and his
considered suggestions have paid me rich dividend."
"Examining with care
every problem arising out during the course of work"? Taking "great
pains in reading and correcting the work"? Advancing "considered
suggestions" which "pay rich dividend"? -- when the entire
manuscript has been lifted word for word from the work of Dr. Parmatma Saran ?
It isn't just a part of
that composite culture that a subaltern should execute such genuflections
towards his patrons. It is plain prudence. By thanking them for their
"guidance at every stage," for their "corrections" and
"suggestions", the subaltern ensures that they too are culpable, and,
therefore, to protect themselves if for no other reason, they will shield him!
The plagiarised book is
appropriately dedicated: "To the memory of my revered Ustad," writes
Tasneem Ahmad, "Professor S. Nurul Hasan" -- a "scholar"
famous for his unpublished writings, the initial master-mind who coordinated
the capture of academic institutions by the progressives. How fitting -- that
when it comes to dedicating something to such a person, the devotee should give
as offering a stolen manuscript!
And what do we learn now?
"For some time an
allegation has been made on one of the employees of the Council," begins a
note prepared for the ICHR meeting held on 31 August and September 1,
"that a work entitled Tarikh-i-Akbari, translated by Professor Parmatma
Saran under the scheme of the ICHR, was appropriated by the Deputy Director of
a Medieval Unit [of the ICHR itself]." Because of the persistence of this
allegation, and because of questions raised by members of Parliament, it goes
on to say, the Chairman constituted a Fact-Finding Committee on 8 August, 1998
to get to the bottom of the matter.
The Committee consisted of
Professor K. S. Lal, an authority on medieval India, Professor Harbans Mukhia
of the Jawaharlal Nehru University, and Dr. T. R. Sareen, former Director of
the ICHR. It was asked to assess, inter alia, whether Dr. Parmatma Saran's
manuscript had been received in the Council [you will recall that in one of
their letters to me the Ministry of Human Resource Development had said that it
did not seem that the manuscript had ever been received ], and to ascertain
whether the manuscript had been "in any form plagiarised by any body,
within or outside the Council."
The manuscript of 62 pages
which, as I reported earlier, had been recovered in the almirahs of the ICHR
was turned over to the Committee. Here are the Committee's findings on the
questions:
"(1) On the strength of
the published Annual Report of the ICHR for the year 1976-77 (p. 11), it is
obvious that the translation of Tarikh-i-Akbari into English done by Professor
Parmatma Saran was received in the Council. This is also confirmed by the
report submitted by the Grants-in-Aid Unit of the Council dated 24.8.1995 when
a preliminary enquiry was constituted to locate the manuscript. The fact(s)
(are) that full payment of honorarium was made to the scholar (which in normal
case is only done after the receipt of the completed manuscript), and the
second project was granted to Professor P. Saran only after completion of the
first project. This related to the translation of Mirat-ul-Istlab, which was
assigned to Professor P. Saran in February, 1978. This also indirectly confirms
the receipt of the earlier manuscript on Tarikh-i-Akbari. With this evidence,
the Committee is led to believe that there is no reason to doubt the receipt of
the manuscript Tarikh-i-Akbari by the Council.
(2) The Committee was
provided with sixty odd pages of type-script of the translation of
Tarikh-i-Akbari done by Professor P. Saran. These pages were recovered from the
file dealing with the translation assigned to Professor P. Saran. These pages
were compared with that published by one of the members of the ICHR, Shri
Tasneem Ahmad, and the Committee found overwhelming similarity between
Professor P. Saran's translation and Shri Ahmad's book. The Committee felt that
the similarity could not be accidental and the element of plagiarism cannot be
ruled out."
How befitting : as tribute
to the 450th anniversary of Akbar, to that "composite culture and unity
that together constitute India" a plagiarised book!
And the finale: in his office
at the ICHR Tasneem Ahmad has kept on display a photograph -- it shows him
presenting the book to the then President of India, Dr. Shankar Dayal Sharma!
The touch of a master, that!
As the days proceed, more
and more gems regarding the doings of these eminent historians keep tumbling
out. The latest project I have learnt about can any day match the ones we have
been considering in ambition -- and in non achievement too. In addition, the
records relating to it give us a glimpse of the entrepreneurial techniques of
the eminences.
This particular project was
started in 1987. It was to produce a Dictionary of Socio-Economic and
Administrative Terms in Indian Inscriptions. The Dictionary was to be in nine
volumes -- that is a key element in the technology: always propose many
volumes! The project was to completed in fifteen years -- another key element:
who knows who will be around 15 years hence! Twenty lakhs of Rupees were to be
taken for the project -- a third element: never be niggardly in demanding public
funds!
Who were to be in charge?
Our good friends. R. S. Sharma, a leading light of the Leftists, a former
Chairman of the ICHR, later a leading advisor to the Sunni Wakf Board in its
efforts to wrest the Babri Masjid site -- he graciously agreed to be the
"General Editor". K. M. Shrimali, who has been very voluble on behalf
of the Camp in the recent controversies, and K. V. Ramesh, with as much grace,
agreed to be the "Main Editors". In addition an "Advisory
Board" of another eleven eminences was constituted to oversee the project
-- this is always a good device: thereby friends can meet at Government
expense, and responsibility of the main suspects is always scattered.
Soon, the scope of the
project was enlarged: Arabic, Persian and Urdu inscriptions too would be
included. And soon this new part too was enlarged: farmans and the like in
these languages would also be included, not just inscriptions. This too is
always useful: enlarge the project every few months, the new items become the
explanation for not having kept to the deadlines specified for the original
proposal ! And who would do this part of the project?
Why, the most eminent of
them all: "Responsibility for compiling the Arabic, Persian and Urdu
inscriptions was accepted by Professor Irfan Habib on the request of the
ICHR," the records state.
How kind!
Everyone was to work in an
"honorary capacity" -- but in the special sense in which these
worthies use the term "honorary"! Each of the two "Main
Editors", the "Editorial Committee" of the project decided in
its meeting on 20 September, 1990, would be paid "an honorarium" of
Rs. 5,000/- for every four months. The General Editor too would be paid an
honorarium of Rs. 3,000/- for every four months. A very important rule that --
never take money, take honoraria! The Committee also decided, "Professor
Shrimali may be allowed to purchase relevant books in connection with the work
of the project if the books are not supplied to him by the ICHR within a
reasonable time" -- a bit of honorariness which every scholar would lust
after!
By 1994 there was a
problem: there was little progress to record, though money was getting spent.
The then Chairman, Ravinder Kumar [very eminent, the head of the Nehru Museum
and Library etc.] convenes a meeting of what the record christens the
"Consultative Committee". The solution? The Committee decides that a
revised proposal be prepared! Another sure-winner: months can be put to
debating, drafting, redrafting, circulating, finalizing this, soon you can be
arguing that the revised proposal contains elements which can be attended to
only with an enhanced budget....Better still -- prepare not a "revised
proposal", prepare a "draft revised proposal". And that is what
was done. A "draft revised proposal" was prepared, and, the record
states, "handed over to the Chairman [Ravinder Kumar] for necessary action
and approval."
Sunk without trace!
"It seems, that the draft proposal was not approved," states the
review note prepared by the ICHR now, "and work was not taken up as per
revised plan [sic.]."
A spat is always useful,
specially one involving principle, personal honour, self-respect. And, happily,
one erupted. At a meeting of the Research Projects Committee, someone --
perhaps Irfan Habib, I am not able to make out from the record -- raised an
objection: a Committee "in which there was very substantial membership of
those who were to be beneficiaries of such a decision" should not have
decided about payments to be made to the editors etc., he objected. Arguments
ensued, tempers rose. But even as it decided that this shall be a "firm
policy for the future", the meeting decided that "each Main Editor,
on completion of a particular volume with which he has been associated, be paid
an honorarium of Rs. 25,000/-."
It noted that this decision
was strictly in accordance with precedent! "The Committee was prompted to
this decision," the minutes record, "in the knowledge that in the
'Towards Freedom' project of the ICHR each volume Editor was to be paid Rs.
25,000/- for his contribution." Unassailable logic: as editors were to get
that amount under a project which was not getting anywhere, why not under
another project which was not getting anywhere either?
That decided, through an
innocuous sentence tagged on to the end of a paragraph, the minutes slipped in
another opportunity: "It may be noted," the minutes noted, "that
two or more Main Editors may be associated with the completion of each volume
of the Dictionary project." From two "Main Editors" for nine
volumes, to "two or more Main Editors" for each volume!
"As for the Chief
Editor [a promotion that, he had till now been known as the 'General
Editor'!]," the minutes recorded, "he should receive a sum of Rs.
30,000/- on the publication of each volume."
R. S. Sharma, as befits his
eminence as much as his Leftism, threw a fit -- always a useful thing to do a
few years into a project: you can then allow yourself to be persuaded, and,
when questions are raised later about nothing having been done, you can always
claim that you in any case had not wanted any part of the project. "In
view of the strictures passed on the 'beneficiaries' of the Dictionary project
in the RPC [Research Projects Committee] meeting," he wrote to the
Council, "I would not like to continue as Chief Editor. I neither asked
for any 'benefice'/'benefit' in any meeting or outside nor did I receive any
remuneration for the work that I did for the project. As far as I can remember
none of the Main Editors asked for any benefit or remuneration in any meeting
of the Editorial Committee."
H. R. Deve Gowda, the then
Prime Minster, and S. R. Bommai, the then Minister for Human Resource
Development, selected the well-known art historian, Professor S. Settar to be
the Chairman of the ICHR. In a sense an outsider, he was duly alarmed at the
state of such projects. He addressed letters to Sharma, Shrimali and Ramesh in
March 1997 inquiring about the work they had done. Months went by, he could not
nudge anyone concerned to get on with the work. He accordingly convened a
meeting of R. S. Sharma and Irfan Habib on 29 September, 1997. He was asked to
contact Shrimali and Ramesh again.
Ramesh now deployed the
next weapon: ask for more! Fools will always throw in good money after bad. He
wrote back saying that for him to do the work, the Council should appoint three
more scholars to assist him [so helpful was he that he specified the names of
the three also!], that the Council provide him with a computer assistant, and
also with rented accommodation! The Chairman wrote pointing out that already
Rs. 45,000/- had been paid to Ramesh, seven years had passed, and asked how
much more time was required. Another year "may be required" if the
terms he had proposed were met, Ramesh answered!
In despair, Settar turned
to Irfan Habib and Sharma again and "appealed" to them to help out --
another tactic: subalterns block the pass; the only way the fellow can hope to
proceed is by beseeching, and thereby getting in the debt of the principals!
Sharma recalled that he had already dissociated himself from the project --
vide the "beneficiaries" spat. In any event, the two met Settar, and
agreed to submit -- by now you should be able to guess -- a revised project
each!
"The detailed note of
the revised project promised by Professor Sharma has not been received so
far," the ICHR was informed at its meeting on August 31-September 1.
"Professor Irfan Habib has yet to send his detailed proposal which he
promised to send on 10.3.98."
As more and more queries
were coming about the project, R. S. Sharma wrote to the Chairman on 7 July,
1998 that "at present I and Shrimali are terribly busy with the editing of
Comprehensive History of India, Vol. IV, pt. 2. I will consult Shrimali to find
out whether he can spare some time for the project this year, though I am not
hopeful. A meeting of Ramesh, Shrimali and other members of the editorial board
should be helpful for completing the project as soon as possible."
Notice the tone: far from
being the one who shares a major part of the responsibility for the state of
affairs, the person is offering to do a favour, to, against his better
judgment, contact Shrimali and see if something can be done to help the
Chairman out !
The result? By now eleven
years have passed. Rs. THREE LAKHS SEVENTY FOUR THOUSAND have been spent.
Nothing but nothing has been published. Thousands of "cards" are said
to have been compiled by specially hired "compilers" -- these remain
in the personal custody of Shrimali and Ramesh. And the Chairman is under
advice that to get the project going he has to convene a meeting of the very
persons who have brought the project to this state -- with the caveat, of
course, that the conditions specified by one of them must first be met, and
that the other -- the TV star -- is "terribly busy" on some other
project!
And, never forget, if the ICHR takes any step to bring them to account, if it takes any step to hand over the project to anyone else, it is doing so because these eminent historians are secular, and the Council is now set to saffronize history!
*******************************
Title: THE
LITMUS TEST OF WHETHER YOUR HISTORY IS SECULAR
Author: Arun Shourie
Publication: India
Connect
Date: Oct 20, 1998
The pattern of these
textbooks thus is set in stone: concoct a picture of pre-Islamic society of
Indian history as a period riddled by discord, tensions, inequity and
oppression -- evidence or no evidence; on the other side, concoct a picture of
the Islamic period as one in which a "composite culture" flowered,
one in which, in spite of the errors of few who acted out of normal,
non-religious motives, there was peace and harmony -- evidence or no evidence!
This pattern continues
throughout the textbook, Medieval India written by Satish Chandra, and
published by the NCERT for Class XI students. Satish Chandra has been a
recipient of the ICHR's projects, he has been a member of the ICHR, he has been
a National Fellow of the ICHR, he has been Chairman of the University Grants
Commission. It is about him that Tasneem Ahmad wrote in his plagiarised book,
"My debt to my revered teacher, Professor Satish Chandra is incalculable.
He took great pains in reading and correcting the work and his considered
suggestions have paid me rich dividend." In a word, as eminent as they come.
"Thus, there was no
atmosphere of confrontation between the Sikhs and the Mughal rulers during this
period," says Satish Chandra. "Nor was there any systematic
persecution of the Hindus, and hence, no occasion for the Sikhs or any group or
sect to stand forth as the champion of the Hindus against religious
persecution. The occasional conflict between the Gurus and the Mughal rulers
was personal and political rather than religious. Despite some display of
orthodoxy by Shah Jahan at the beginning of his reign and a few acts of
intolerance, such as the demolition of 'new' temples, he was not narrow in his
outlook which was further tempered towards the end of his reign by the
influence of his liberal son, Dara."
That being the case, what
do these eminent historians have to say about Guru Nanak, and his searing cry,
Khurasan khasmana kiya
Hindustanu daraiya
Aapae dosu na deyi karta
jamu kari mughlu chadhaiya
Karta tu sabhna ka soi
Je sakta sakte kayu mare
taa mani rosu na hoyi
Sakta sihu maare paye
vagaye khasme sa pursai
Ratan vigadi vigoye
kuttin muiya saar na koyi....
Having lifted Islam to the
head, You have engulfed Hindustan in dread....
Such cruelties have they
inflicted, and yet Your mercy remains unmoved....
Should the strong attack
the strong the heart does not burn.
But when the strong
crush the helpless, surely
the One who was to protect them has to be called to account....
O' Lord, these dogs have
destroyed this diamond-like Hindustan, (so great is their terror that) no one
asks after those who have been killed,
and yet You do not pay
heed....
What do they say of Guru
Nanak's account of the young brides whose youth, jewels, honour have been
snatched away by the invaders on the orders of Babar? What of his wail,
Ikna vakhat khuvai ahi
ikhan pooja jayi
Chadke vindu
hindvandiyan kiyu tike kathi nayi
Ramu na kabhu chetiyo
hundi kahndi na mile khudai....
Hindus have been forbidden
to pray at the time of the Muslim's namaz, Hindu society has been left without
a bath, without a tilak.
Even those who have never
uttered "Ram", even they can get no respite by shouting "Khuda,
Khuda"....
The few who have survived
Babar's jails wail....
The desolation which has
come over the land....
The entire races which have
been exterminated, which have been humiliated....
The account not of some
merely eminent historian, but of Guru Nanak. [The verses given above are merely
illustrative. For a comprehensive account of the question see, K. P. Agarwal's
forthcoming, Sri Guru Granth Sahib aur Islam.] Not some account written by
looking at records of centuries ago, but testimony of the moment, of what Guru
Nanak had been witness to himself....
Let us hear these eminent
secularists, then, declare that this cry of Guru Nanak was a concoction. And
that the entire life and campaign of Guru Govind Singh was born of
"personal and political" factors rather than from a profound
religious impulse, and that, therefore, all his own explanations, his
impassioned, soul-stirring explanations in this regard are that much deception.
Akbar is the epitome of
tolerance, Shah Jahan "despite some display of orthodoxy.... at the
beginning of his reign and a few acts of intolerance" remains
broad-minded. The only opposition to this liberalism comes from "orthodox
elements". But here too Satish Chandra executes the "balancing".
The orthodox elements in question are always of "the two leading faiths,
Hinduism or Islam," together! Both sides strive to undo the liberality of
the Islamic rulers out of the same mundane motivation, that is, they oppose the
liberal policy because it threatens their entrenched interests.
Aurangzeb's orthodoxy
cannot, of course, be entirely denied. Therefore, explanations upon
explanations – secular explanations! -- are invented. While reading the
following, bear in mind the far-reaching assertions these historians made about
ancient India on the basis of little evidence, and contrast them with how they
treat unambiguous, overwhelming evidence in the case of Aurangzeb.
"Later, in the
eleventh year of his reign (1669)," remarks Satish Chandra,
"Aurangzeb took a number of measures which have been called puritanical,
but many of which were really of economic and social character, and against
superstitious beliefs.... Many other regulations of a similar nature, some of a
moral character and some to instill a sense of austerity, were issued...."
The destruction of temples
upon temples by Aurangzeb naturally comes in for the longest explanations!
Firstly, we are told that all that Aurangzeb did was to reiterate the old order
of the Shariat -- that no new temples shall be built, and that this "order
regarding temples was not a new one" -- it merely reaffirmed the position
which had existed during the Sultanate period, the period, remember, of
"general toleration"! Satish Chandra adds a second explanation:
"In practice, it [the order] left wide latitude to the local officials as
to the interpretation of the words 'long standing temples'."
A third extenuating
circumstance is then invented. Having noted the destruction of temples in
Gujarat by Aurangzeb when he was the Governor of that province, and having
noted his reiteration of the Standing Order under the Shariat, Satish Chandra
says, "however, it does not seem that Aurangzeb's order regarding ban on
new temples led to a large scale destruction of temples at the outset of the
reign." It is only when Aurangzeb "encountered political opposition
from a number of quarters, such as, the Marathas, Jats etc.," that he
"seems to have adopted a new stance". When he now came in
"conflict with local elements," he began to consider it
"legitimate to destroy even long standing Hindu temples as a measure of
punishment and as a warning." Thus, first, the order was just an old one!
Second, the order left wide latitude to the local officials! Third, even this
order was not implemented "at the outset of the reign"! Fourth, it is
only when he encountered political opposition and when he came in conflict with
local elements that Aurangzeb began to consider it legitimate to destroy Hindu
temples! Fifth, this "new stance" too is only something which seems
to have been adopted!
Moreover, Aurangzeb did so,
Satish Chandra tells us, because "he began to look upon temples as centres
of spreading subversive ideas, that is ideas which were not acceptable to the
orthodox elements. Hence the destruction of the Kashi Vishwanath Temple at
Banaras and the temple at Mathura." "The destruction of these temples
had a political motivation as well ....," Satish Chandra emphasizes, and
continues, "it was in this context that many temples built in Orissa
during the last 10 to 12 years were also destroyed." And then, "but
it is wrong to think that there were any orders for the general destruction of
temples." Lest anyone come up with citations upon citations from
contemporary historians, another sentence to explain away what was actually
done: "however, the situation was different during periods of
hostilities."
The general conclusion: what Aurangzeb did "was a setback to
the policy of broad toleration followed by his predecessors"! And even he
did it for secular reasons! And even though, compelled by these reasons, he did
it only for the shortest time, for the years marked by hostilities instigated
by "local elements"! "However," concludes Satish Chandra,
"it seems that Aurangzeb's zeal for the destruction of temples abated
after 1679, for we do not hear of any large scale destruction of temples in the
South between 1681 and his death in 1707."
Yes, Aurangzeb introduced
the jaziya, but, cautions Satish Chandra, "it was not meant to be an
economic pressure for forcing Hindus to convert to Islam, for its incidence was
to be light." For this assertion Satish Chandra gives two bits of proof,
so to say. First, "women, children, the disabled, the indigent, that is,
those whose income was less than the means of subsistence, were exempted as
were those in government service." How could even Aurangzeb have exacted a
tax from those "whose income was less than the means of subsistence?
" And why would he exact a discriminatory and humiliating tax from those
who were in government service, that is, from those who were already serving
his interests and those of the Islamic State? ! The second proof that Satish
Chandra gives is that "in fact, only an insignificant section of Hindus
changed their religion due to this tax" -- but could that not have been
because of the firm attachment of Hindus to their faith, because of their
tenacity rather than because of the liberality of Aurangzeb?
The jaziya was not meant
either to meet "a difficult financial situation". Its reimposition
was in fact, says Satish Chandra, "both political and ideological in
nature." Political in the sense that "it was meant to rally the
Muslims for the defence of the State against the Marathas and the Rajputs who
were up in arms, and possibly against the Muslim States of Deccan, especially
Golconda, which was in alliance with the infidels." A parity twice-over --
one, that Aurangzeb was only trying to rally the Muslims just as those opposing
him had rallied the Marathas and Rajputs! And, in any case, the ones who were
opposing him were "infidels"!
And what about the
"ideological" impulse? "Ideological," yes, but the
"ideology" was everything except Islam! Furthermore, Satish Chandra
explains, "jaziya was to be collected by honest, God-fearing Muslims who
were specially appointed for the purpose and its proceeds were reserved for the
Ulama." As the proceeds went to Ulama, there was a secular reason for
exacting the tax -- it was to be "a type of bribe for the theologians
among whom there was a lot of unemployment," and, second, as the tax was
being collected by "honest, God-fearing Muslims," one can be certain
that they were considerate and, like Allah in the Qur'an, would have never imposed
upon anyone a burden which he could not bear!
Some modern writers, Satish
Chandra says, are of the opinion that Aurangzeb's measures were designed to
convert India into Dar ul Islam but, in fact, "although Aurangzeb
considered it legitimate to encourage conversions to Islam, evidence of
systematic or large scale attempts at forced conversions is lacking."
And finally a piece of
evidence which is a favourite with the secularists: "Nor were Hindu nobles
discriminated against. A recent study has shown that the number of Hindus in
the nobility during the second half of Aurangzeb's reign had steadily
increased, till the Hindus, including Muslims, formed about one-third of the
nobility as against one-fourth under Shah Jahan." Correspondingly, one can
claim on behalf of the British Empire that close to 98% of the titles it
conferred – Rai Sahib, Rai Bahadur, knighthoods and so on -- were conferred on
Indians! That they were conferred because these Indians were serving the
British Empire faithfully, just as Aurangzeb was taking into his nobility those
who were serving his purposes faithfully, is a matter of detail by which
naturally Class XI students would not like to be confused!
The final assessment of our
secularist eminence could not be more empathetic! First, Satish Chandra
emphasizes that "Aurangzeb's religious beliefs could not be considered the
basis of his political policies." Aurangzeb was an "orthodox
Muslim," true; he was "desirous of upholding the strict letter of the
law," true; but he was also a ruler and was "keen to strengthen and
expand the empire." The former required that he be tough with the Hindus.
The latter, on the other hand, required that he retain "the support of the
Hindus to the extent possible." The two impulses – his religious ideas and
beliefs on the one hand and the requirements of empire on the other --
sometimes "led him to adopt contradictory policies which harmed the
empire."
Our eminent historian then
proceeds to give an account of the Marathas, the Jats, the campaigns against
Golconda and Bijapur. At every turn he labours to show that the religious
impulse did not have much to do with Aurangzeb's attitude towards any of these
"rebellions". Indeed, Aurangzeb's religious policy must be seen in
the context of the rebellions which were challenging his empire, we are told!
Thus, Satish Chandra's final conclusion: "Aurangzeb's religious policy
should be seen in the social, economic and political context. Aurangzeb was
orthodox in his outlook and tried to remain within the framework of the Islamic
law. But this law was developed outside India in vastly dissimilar situations,
and could hardly be applied rigidly to India. His failure to respect the
susceptibilities of his non-Muslim subjects on many occasions, his adherence to
the time-worn policy towards temples and reimposition of jizyah as laid down by
the Islamic law did not help him to rally the Muslims to his side or generate a
greater sense of loyalty towards a state based on Islamic law. On the other
hand, it alienated segments of the Hindus and strengthened the hands of those
sections which were opposed to the Mughal empire for political or other
reasons. By itself, religion was not a point at issue. Jizyah was scrapped
within half a dozen years of Aurangzeb's death and restrictions on building new
temples eased."
"In the ultimate
resort," Satish Chandra concludes, "the decline and downfall of the
empire was due to economic, social, political and institutional factors"
-- notice, no religious factors! Akbar held the forces of disintegration in
check for some time. But it was impossible for him to effect fundamental
changes in the structure of society, says our author, and therefore : "By
the time Aurangzeb came to the throne, the socio-economic forces of
disintegration were already strong. Aurangzeb lacked the foresight and
statesmanship necessary to effect fundamental changes in the structure or to
pursue policies which could, for the time being, reconcile the various
competing elements.
"Thus, Aurangzeb was
both a victim of circumstances, and helped to create the circumstances of which
he became a victim." Empathy personified! And this is the point: the
litmus test of secularist writing is whether you are prepared to stand up for Aurangzeb
or not.
*************************
Author: Arun Shourie
Publication: India
Connect
Date: Nov 11, 1999
"Arun Shourie is not a
historian. He is a mythologist of Hindu communalism. He is a political
pornographer," declared one of these eminent historians, K. N. Panikkar in
Kerala the other day. He had been asked for an answer to the facts I had set
out in "Eminent Historians". And he was giving reasons why it was
beneath his dignity to give one. He had been a little less lofty till just a
few weeks ago! And had deigned to write an entire article trying to explain the
facts I had set out about the goings on in the Indian Council of Historical
Research. "This is an old charge which keeps surfacing now and then,"
he had written in The Asian Age. I had shown that the story they had
planted -- about "rational" having been made into
"national", had been a complete forgery. I had also drawn attention
to the way large sums had been consumed in projects of the ICHR -- such as the Towards
Freedom Project -- and how little had come of them. He wrote that The Times
of India too had put out a front-page story about the Towards Freedom
Project the previous year. And the historians had clarified the facts
through a public statement.... They had not received a penny. They had worked
in a purely honorary capacity....We have seen more of the facts since. But what
he said -- "This is an old charge...." -- is something to bear in
mind -- there is never a right time to ask a question about them. If events are
still fresh, their response always is: "But where are the facts?"
If you happen to have
enumerated and substantiated the twenty facts about which evidence is in, their
response is: "But he has not taken into account item 21; this selective
focus on just a handful of facts shows that he is working to a purpose."
When sufficient time has elapsed, and you have garnered and presented evidence
about all the facts, their response is: "But this is an old charge. That
he is raking it up now shows how the forces of reaction are panic-stricken at
the growing consolidation of forces of secularism and democracy."
And there is never a right
person to question them either. If the critic happens to have been one of them
at some time in the past, and speaks from inside knowledge, they denounce him:
"His writing itself shows that he has crossed the barricade." If he
has not, they shout: "A habitual Left-baiter, notorious for having been at
the World Bank, a self-confessed apologist for the forces of reaction...."
And each time they set
forth a spate of angry words!
"If he believes, as he
apparently does, that the fame of historians like S. Gopal, R. S. Sharma,
Romila Thapar and Irfan Habib who are held in high academic esteem, both
nationally and internationally, are [sic.] based on cheap manipulation,"
wrote Panikkar, "there must be something congenitally wrong with his mind.
Otherwise it is possible that he is reflecting his own personal experience as
to how a 'fellow' like him who writes communal mythology has come to be
regarded a distinguished journalist."
"Finally, about hymen
and virginity about which Shourie, as a good Hindu, is rightly concerned,"
Panikkar continued. "In the public eye his hymen has not remained intact,
not because where he writes or to whom he gives interviews and articles, only
because what he writes. Needless to say that the RSS publications carry his
interviews and articles only because they are rabidly communal. He cannot hope
to remain a virgin after selling himself in the flesh market. Being a BJP
member of Parliament and an ideologue of Hindu communalism, Shourie should get
his hymen tested, if he is still under misconception about his virginity."
That is scholarly response.
Indeed, in their circles it passes for "devastating refutation"! But
one must go the extra mile: proclaim your belief in double-standards - yes, I
do what he does, but I do so because I believe in The Cause!
"As for me, unlike
him, I do not hunt with the hound and run with the hare," Panikkar
continued, though it wasn't clear what the colloquism was in aid of. "I
contribute signed articles to the publications of the Communist Party, because
I believe in the ideals it stands for - democracy, secularism and socialism. By
doing so, if my hymen is broken, I do not lament it, as Shourie does."
All this as an answer to
the facts about the working of the ICHR to which I had drawn attention! Since
then, an additional mountain of facts has been published. About pilferage,
about doctored textbooks, about the intellectual dishonesty in the way these
eminents treat facts and sources. Their response now is twofold.
First, an entire theory!
"There is no such thing as 'objectivity' in history," Panikkar told
the audience in Kerala. So, when you find them concocting "facts",
you cannot but applaud them: having liberated themselves from bourgeois
scruples, they are propagating what will serve The Great Cause! And the
evidence you adduce which establishes that what they are saying is a
concoction, that evidence is of no consequence -- because in any case in
history there is no such thing as objectivity!
This consummation is
inevitable. When they are caught having forged a news story, when they cite a
source in their textbook and that source manifestly contains the opposite, what
other defence can they give than to denounce reason and evidence itself?!
Inevitable, yes. But also self-correcting.
As the needs of The Great
Cause change every now and then, their "theses," their
"facts" change: you just have to read in a row the successive
editions of the History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolshevik),
to see the somersaults. The way they collaborated with the British during 1942,
the passion with which they advocated the demand of the Muslim League for
Partition, and how today in Kerala they have spawned a film to show that
Communists are the ones who forced the rulers of Travancore to merge with India
-- to the point that they plotted the assassination of C. P. Ramaswamy Aiyer,
the Diwan -- these provide ready examples. The craven accolades our Communists
showered on the Emergency when it was in force, and how, the moment it had
ended, they coloured themselves up as heroes who had fought it -- these will do
as well.
But with somersault
following somersault, even the slow-witted see through their harangues. Soon,
therefore, their only defence is to denounce reason and evidence per se. The
perfect boomerang: they started by claiming that their's was the only objective,
scientific approach to history, to every discipline, and this is the position
to which they are soon driven -- that of denouncing the relevance of evidence,
that of denouncing that very objectivity.
The less they have by way
of an answer, the harsher the words in which they say it! "An
ignoramus," declares a budding-eminent in The Asian Age. "A
part-time historian," declares another in The Indian Express --
what is so bad about being a part-timer exposing their whole-time fraud?
An old charge.... Mythologist
of Hindu communalism.... Political pornographer Guilt-by-association.... In a
word, shout, scream, throw a label, paste a motive - and thereby frighten. How
familiar. "The criticism that Communists decide their policy not in the
interests of their own country but in the interests of the Soviet Union is
neither new nor original," thundered the Communist Party of India at
Gandhiji and the Congress when it was confronted with evidence of having
betrayed the National Movement during the Quit India struggle, and teamed up
with the British. "It has been an old, very old gibe of the reactionary
parties and their scribes the world over. It was the main theme the British
Prosecutor played up against us in the Meerut Conspiracy Case. If 17 years
later you make the same suggestion against us, we cannot but ask you - Is this
worthy of you?"
[Communist Reply to the
Congress Working Party Charges, by the General Secretary of the party, P. C.
Joshi, Communist Party of India, Calcutta, March 1946, abridged version, pp.
3-4.]
And always there is --
perhaps, I should now say, "there used to be" -- the decisive proof:
of having been vindicated by History! "All our brother parties had to live
down this slander through their work among their own people," the Communist
Party continued. "And if in the world of today there is any single
political force which is growing, it is the Communist movement. If any banner
has lost ground in every country, it is the bankrupt banner of blind
anticommunism."
Towards the end of 1983, Mr.
V. M. Tarkunde invited me to deliver the M. N. Roy Memorial Lecture for 1984.
The lecture was held in Bombay on the same day in 1984 as it is every year -
the birth anniversary of M. N. Roy. I documented the treacherous role the
Communists had played during the 1942 Movement. Pritish Nandy, then Editor of The
Illustrated Weekly, carried the text in a series. The text contained
documents from Indian and British Archives - of secret liaisons of the
Communist functionaries with British rulers, the requests they made and the
concessions they were given, the accounts they submitted to Richard Maxwell,
the Home Member, and Richard Tottenham, the Additional Secretary who directed
the brutal suppression of that campaign, reports in which the Communist Party
set out the good work its members had done to help the Government....
E.M.S. Namboodiripad rushed
to Bombay. Shourie is speaking for the forces of reaction, he thundered at a
specially-convened press conference. These forces have panicked at the growing
unity of secular and democratic forces.... They are unnerved that they will get
a sound drubbing at the elections which are round the corner.... No elections
were round any corner. Mr. Tarkunde had given his invitation five months
earlier. The Communists' role in the Quit India Movement had not been the topic
I had thought of in the first instance. I had thought that I would speak on
"Ideology as Blinkers," and that I would illustrate my argument with
four examples. By the time of the lecture only one example was ready - that
relating to the Communists during the 1942 Movement. And that is how I got to
speak on the topic when I did. Nonetheless, "conspiracy",
"unnerved", "elections round the corner".... it was!
That was in 1984. Soon, E.
M. S. took a giant step towards owning up to what could no longer be hidden! Of
course, he did so in the way characteristic of those who have appropriated The
Great Cause ! Yes, we entered into a liaison with the British. But we did
so to master the arts of war: the dumbos in the Congress could not grasp the
international situation, we alone could -- for we had The Theory; and we saw
that the principal task was to save the country from the Japanese, that for
this what was needed was a mastery of the arts of war, and that the only way to
gain access to these arts at the time was to establish a working relationship
with the British!
The rationalization is
typical of his A History of Indian Freedom Struggle, the 900-page book he
published in 1986, just two years after that fusillade about my lecture.
Congress policy was wrong and suicidal, Namboodiripad wrote. Gandhi had not
thought the matter through, he wrote, and had left no instructions on how the
struggle should be carried on in the event of the principal leaders being
arrested. The Congress had not prepared for guerrilla war against the advancing
Japanese, he wrote. It had devised no way to provide medical assistance to
victims of bombing, nor had it thought of mobilising the masses against
hoarders and profiteers, he wrote. It was the Communist Party which took up
these tasks, Namboodiripad wrote. "It did not hesitate to establish
contact with the government and accept the assistance necessary for carrying
out this programme."
Thus, it was just a
"contact"! That "contact" was established to train the
cadres for guerrilla war against the invading Japanese. And what the comrades
did was not to assist the British, they only "did not hesitate.... to
accept the assistance" which the British proffered! And the poor
Communists had to take on this repugnant task because the Congress and Gandhi
had not thought the matter through!
In any case, there were
disagreements within the Congress too, Namboodiripad wrote. Other leaders too were
confused, he wrote. In fact, having themselves carted off to prison enabled the
Congress leaders to escape responsibility for what had to be done. Violence and
sabotage broke out, and Gandhi did not condemn these, he charged. At the back
of the Congress leaders' decision to launch the Quit India Movement was the
object of furthering their bourgeois class interests by eventually negotiating
and compromising with the British rulers, Namboodiripad wrote. It is the
Communist Party, and not the Congress which acted in accordance with the
resolutions of the Congress, he claimed. Moreover, though the Communist Party
opposed the Quit India struggle, it simultaneously organised campaigns against
the general policies of the Government, he claimed.
The familiar blend of
indignation, apologia, explanation, evasion. By the end of Namboodiripad's
account, this mixture of half-truths, smears, pasting motives on others, non-sequiters,
contradictions becomes laughable.
"This does not,
however, mean that the Communist Party did not commit any error in translating
its general approach towards the Quit India struggle into practical
activities," the General Secretary of the Party allowed.
"Failing to properly
appreciating (sic.) the popular feeling behind the struggle, the Party had
often displayed a tendency to denounce those participating in the struggle as
fascist agents. It had also made certain errors in organising mass struggles
during this period. All such errors were subjected later to sever
self-criticism, particularly in the Second Party Congress held in Calcutta in
1948." That last bit has an immediate practical consequence : if before
their self-criticism you criticised their doings, you were clearly a fascist
agent; if you do so after that, you are even more conclusively a fascist agent
-- the Party having already acknowledged its "error", that you are
still raking up the "old canard" is proof positive that you are doing
so at the behest of the forces of reaction!
But, clearly, to admit that
the Party made a fundamental error would cut at the claim to infallibility.
Hence, there is the SOP -- the Standard Operating Procedure. If sticking by the
Line is too costly, the Party and its intellectuals acknowledge the
"error", but immediately add that the "error" was just a
tactical one! True to the SOP, Namboodiripad, concluded, "Despite the
omissions and commissions, the Party adopted a policy which was by and large
correct during the Quit India struggle."
That is because the Hitler-Stalin Pact was correct, it was a clever counter-move: the capitalist-imperialists conspired to set Hitler to destroy the Soviet Union, Namboodiripad maintained; by entering into a Pact with Hitler, Stalin foiled their conspiracy. The consequence was as decisive as it was immediate: "Hitler could now turn westwards," the General Secretary noted with satisfaction.... That is why the Indian Communist Party characterized the War as an Imperialist War in this phase, and insisted that the Congress take advantage of the difficulties of Britain to push it in India -- for Britain was arrayed against Hitler who was the ally of the Soviet Union. Of course, Hitler turned perfidious: in spite of the Pact, he invaded The Only Fatherland. The War immediately turned into a Peoples War, the General Secretary explains. And that is why the Communist Party insisted that Gandhi and the Congress desist from doing anything which will inconvenience the British -- for they were now allied with the Soviet Union.
"The characterisation
of the war by Communists as 'imperialist' in the first phase and as 'peoples
war' in the second phase was based on one and the same principle,"
Namboodiripad wrote. "It is certainly a crucial issue what attitude the
ruling classes take towards the Soviet Union which is destined to decide the
future of human society." This in 1986! "The Communist Party had
never hidden its stand on this issue," he declared. Not just the
Communists, "Everyone who is interested in man's onward march to socialism
would take the same stand," Namboodiripad declared. All this in a book
published in 1986!
In any event, there had
been an advance. In 1984, Namboodiripad had denounced mention of their doings.
In 1986 he acknowledged the "error". Three years did not pass and he
was talking more about the "mistake", and less about the explanations
for it! So, when they come down on us, we just have to wait a while.
But Namboodiripad's press
conference, it turned out, was just the opening salvo, as we shall see.
Back to Part I
___________________