The Weekend Observer, December 4, 1999
Leftist intellectuals are of late busy defending the
Marxist contribution to history writing in India. Frightened by a perceived
threat to their hegemony following the loss of formidable positions of
intellectual power and patronage, they are gearing up to resist the inevitable
challenge to their version of history.
Sneering at ‘saffron historians’ whose views have
begun to command some attention in intellectual circles, the Leftists claim
that the former will be unable to present a history that can seriously overturn
their account.
Their cockiness is baffling since ‘saffron
historians’ have no need to engage in such an endeavour at all. A formidable
pre-Marxist history already exists; it has merely to be restored to its former
glory. Marxists claim to have widened the spectrum of historical research to
include economic, social, subaltern and sundry other perspectives, to create a
more complete narrative.
However, archaeologists, anthropologists,
sociologists, linguists, philosophers, and specialists on comparative religion
have put together a far richer rendition of the Indian reality. What is more,
it seriously contests the Marxist version in several key areas.
The asymmetry between archaeological findings and
Leftist treaties on early Indian history is now too great to be ignored by
serious scholars, though it Must be admitted that Marxists are taking a valiant
last stand; they are fanning out to various colleges with ever-greater vigour
in a bid to impress susceptible audiences of the strength of their theses.
It would be interesting to know whether members of the
Archaeological Survey are also being courted in university campuses, which are
more or less still Marxist bastions. However, it is empirical archaeological
data, not normative saffronist fancy, that has disproved an Indo-Aryan or
European invasion in the pre-or proto-historic periods. There is simply nothing
to prove that the Vedic-speaking people were intruders in the Indus-Saraswati
region. The ‘big bang’ theory of Indian Civilization - the so-called seismic
clash between Aryans and Dravidians - has bitten dust, without RSS historians
having to lift a shovel.
Philosophers and experts on comparative religion have
also cast the weight of their scholarship in favour of an integrated Indian
Civilization long before saffron intellectuals came on the scene. S N
Dasgupta’s magisterial History of Indian Philosophy marshalled an amazing body
of religious documents to present a powerful argument for the Vedic basis of
Indian Civilization. Sadly, but perhaps predictably, this authoritative study
has been edged out of the recommended reading, at least in Delhi University.
Even writers of such eminence as Mircea Eliade, Rene
Guenon, Hanrich Zimmer, who elevated Hinduism to a level unpalatable to
Marxists, have suffered eclipse. These scholars have written forcefully of
Hinduism as the oldest of the mystery religions of the world: A form of
Philosophia Perennis, embodying those universal truths to which no people or
age can make exclusive claim. Its doctrines, they have said, can neither change
nor be perfected, only viewed and formulated afresh, “each successive
formulation always remaining completely faithful to the traditional spirit.” It
is to Hinduism that these scholars credit Indian’s coherence, even in the
absence of outward structure and authority, again without any prompting from
the Parivar and its affiliates.
Then there is Ananda Coomaraswamy who detected in
India “a strong national genius... since the beginning of her history.” He
found Indian art and culture “a joint creation of the Dravidian and Aryan
genius.” Of Buddhism, he wrote:’ “the more profound our study, the more
difficult it becomes to distinguish Buddhism from Brahmanism, or to say in what
respects, if any, Buddhism is really unorthodox. The outstanding distinction
lies in the fact that Buddhist doctrine is propounded by an apparently
historical founder. Beyond this there are only broad distinctions of emphasis.”
No right-wing historian could dare put it so boldly in Indian today.
Unfortunately for Marxists, sociological and
anthropological works on Indian social structures are also overwhelmingly at
variance with their tomes on the subject. In sociological accounts, the caste
system, projected by Marxists as the archetype of oppressive institutions,
appears as not-so-villainous. Non-Marxist accounts bring out the high degree of
fluidity in the caste system, with upward mobility the greatest pursuit.
It is sociological and anthropological accounts that
have fully alerted us to the irrelevance of varna hierarchy in
day-to-day life, where power was a crucial determinant and was exercise more
often than not by dominant castes belonging to the fourth varna. At the
local level at least, the varna order was turned on its head with
agricultural castes serving as benefactors and role models for all in their
vicinity.
Sociologists and anthropologists like, M N Srinivas,
C J Fuller, Jonathan Parry and Marcel Mauss have unraveled (without help from
rightist quarters) the ritually limited role of Brahmins, their complete
dependence on their lower caste patrons, and the contempt and ridicule they
generally evoked in tile countryside. In Marxist historiography, in sharp
contrast, the Brahmin has been consistently equated with Shylock.
Sociological accounts of the Indian village community
also contradict Marxist pontifications on the subject. The former have laid far
greater stress on ‘inter-caste complementarily,’ the sense of community that
was reiterated in joint celebration of festivities, rituals, worship, and in
combined efforts to raise the crop and defend life and property from
freebooters and natural calamities. Institutions of caste come across as
vibrant and supple in sociological and anthropological writings, as opposed to
their oppressive and status quoist depiction in Leftist literature. Here too,
it may be noted, saffron writers have played a negligible role.
On Islam, too, there is little need for a saffron
academic effort. Enough work has been done by such renowned scholars as Bernard
Lewis and Patricia Crone for us to fully appreciate the significance of the
Islamic revolution in the world context. Crone has adequately explained the
centrality of conquest in ‘the Muslim scheme of things. Mohammed’s God” she
writes, endorsed a policy of conquest, instructing his believers to fight against
unbelievers wherever they might be found. In short, Mohammed had to conquer,
his followers liked to conquer, and his doily told him to conquer; do we need
any more?’
Bernard Lewis, in turn, has dwelt at length on the
“radical change” and “discontinuity” that Islam brought wherever it went in the
Middle East. The pre-Islamic states, scripts and languages were wiped out.
There was a violent break “in the self-image and
corporate sense of identity, and the collective memory of the Islamic Peoples
in the Middle East” We should not expect that things could have been
differently intended for India.
On Indian specifically, we have works such as those
of the late Prof. Aziz Ahmad, whose Studies in Islamic Culture in the Indian
Environment provides a devastating account of the magnitude of the rift between
the two religious in the subcontinent and speaks of the inevitability of
Partition.
Prof. Ahmad’s works have been supplemented by those
of a number of American academics whose researches have led them to similar
conclusions.
In the light of such a formidable intellectual corpus
just waiting to be rehabilitated, Marxist intellectuals should refrain from
taunting saffronists to pick up the gauntlet. Their time would be better spent
scrambling for cover. The bubble is about to burst.
(The author is a historian and professor at Delhi
university.)
© Meenakshi Jain