People's Democracy

Communalisation Of History:  The Long Battle Ahead

Amar Farooqui

THE last two decades have witnessed an aggressive ideological onslaught to portray India�s past in communal terms. The Sangh parivar, as is well known, has been at the forefront of this onslaught. The communal mobilisation that led to the demolition of the Babri Masjid in 1992 was an indication of the ferocity of the offensive. Of course this onslaught has a longer history. In 1977, the Janata Party regime, of which the Jana Sangh was an important component, launched an attack against history textbooks published by the NCERT (and National Book Trust) leading to all-round public condemnation because this was rightly seen as a blatant attempt to impose the Sangh parivar�s communal ideology on the teaching of history. The books in question were written by outstanding historians such as R S Sharma, Romila Thapar, Bipan Chandra, Amales Tripathi and Barun De. What was objectionable from the point of view of the parivar was that these books were based on scientific historical methodology incorporating recent researches and that they successfully depicted India�s composite past.

The roots of the deliberate falsification and distortion of Indian history�through a complete denial of its composite nature�for communal politics goes back to the 1920s, when chauvinistic perceptions of Indian history which were being formulated since the late nineteenth century were appropriated for politics of communal divisiveness. The chauvinistic understanding of Indian history during the last quarter of the nineteenth century had developed in response to the colonial denial of Indian nationhood. But this response usually operated within the framework of colonial historiography while attempting to challenge it. Thus the colonial periodisation that labelled the ancient period as �Hindu�, and the medieval period as �Muslim�, was generally retained. The difference was that the ancient period was glorified and romanticised, unlike in colonial historiography in which it was denigrated. The medieval period was seen as a dark age, as a period of decline, as a period in which Indians were ruled by outsiders/foreigners.

The coming together of chauvinistic-nationalist, communal, and colonial perceptions of the medieval period is best illustrated by the example of how Somnath became, in the words of Romila Thapar, a metaphor for Hindu�Muslim conflict in twentieth century India with the propagation of the myth that �the raid of Mahmud created a trauma in the Hindu consciousness which has been at the root of Hindu�Muslim relations for nearly a thousand years. The process whereby this myth was created was already underway prior to 1857 and may be dated to the early 1840s, when Lord Ellenborough had the so-called �Gates of Somnath� removed from Mahmud�s tomb in Ghazni and ceremonially brought to India, to salvage British imperial pride after the reversals of the First Afghan War (1839-42). The language of the proclamation issued on the occasion leaves one in no doubt about the intent, namely fostering Hindu-Muslim divisions: �The insult of eight hundred years is at last avenged. The gates of the temple of Somnath, so long the memorial of your humiliation, have become the proudest record of your national glory, the proof of your superiority in arms over the nations beyond the Indus� (emphasis added). The notion of the medieval period of Indian history as marking �eight hundred years of slavery� (beginning with Mahmud Ghaznavi�s invasions, c1000) which is so crucial to the Sangh parivar�s communal version of history, is indeed identical to the notion of eight hundred years of humiliation that Ellenborough�s proclamation spoke of.

Similarly Muslim communalism of the period began to emphasise the distinct identity of Muslims as a nation through another kind of deliberate falsification. The history of this Muslim nation supposedly commenced sometime at the beginning of the medieval period. It is this perception that has dominated the writing of history textbooks in Pakistan, wherein the history of Pakistan supposedly dates back to the conquest of Sind by the Arabs, 711 AD. Students thus remain generally ignorant of the history of the region/subcontinent prior to the eighth century. In contemporary India, Muslim communal organisations seek to evoke nostalgia for the medieval period that is seen as an era of Muslim supremacy in the subcontinent. Here again the medieval period is equated with �Muslim period�.

Chronologically, history as a modern discipline has developed more or less simultaneously with nationalism. In fact the history of the discipline and the history of nationalism are closely interconnected. History-writing has had to contend with the demands of the nationalist project worldwide. It has invariably been pressed into the service of nationalist mobilisation, since each nation is supposed to have a common history: each nation must therefore have an authorised version of its own history. This has been a contentious issue, to say the least, often with terrible consequences. The mass-killing of Jews in Nazi Germany was, and the brutal suppression of the Palestinians in contemporary Israel is, legitimised in terms of so-called authorised versions of history.

Similarly there have been contending versions of Indian nationhood since the latter half of the nineteenth century. During the course of the anti-imperialist struggle, the dominant understanding of the nation, as represented (at least officially) by the Indian National Congress, and the Left, was that of a secular, multilingual, multiethnic India. This understanding in turn was the outcome of a long history of common struggles of the people against British rule. The Great Revolt of 1857 was a major landmark in the history of this common struggle. The struggles of the peasantry, of tribal communities, of dalits, of forest-dwellers, of artisans, of workers�of toiling people throughout the subcontinent for nearly two centuries against colonialism and against feudal landlordism as well as various exploitative sections, produced a common vision of a secular and democratic nation.

Ultimately it was this understanding that was broadly enshrined in the constitution. There has been a sustained attempt by the Sangh parivar to undermine the secular and democratic fabric of the constitution (the RSS, it may be recalled, even rejected the Indian flag). The parivar and those who adhere to its ideology have endeavoured to shape the nation in terms of Hindutva, mainly along the lines of nationhood articulated by V D Savarkar during the 1920s and subsequently elaborated upon by M S Golwalkar. This is a conception of nationhood which excludes Muslims and Christians as they are not supposed to be �ethnically� Indian and have their most sacred religious sites outside the subcontinent. The compromises made by the Congress on the issue of secularism, particularly from the late sixties onwards, have made the Sangh parivar�s offensive more potent, culminating in the aggressive ideological onslaught and physical mobilisation on the issue of the Babri Masjid from the late eighties onwards. History as a discipline has been a casualty with these developments. Those who are not even remotely connected with history�with no training in the discipline�have been arrogating to themselves the right to hold forth on historical facts and interpretations.

Not surprisingly, when the BJP-led NDA government came to power in 1999, it lost no time in targeting history textbooks. Given the important role played by NCERT textbooks in providing the structure for the teaching of history throughout the country, existing NCERT textbooks (including those which had been attacked in 1977) were promptly replaced by new textbooks. These new textbooks incorporated the Sangh parivar�s ideological positions, apart from being substandard in content, prejudiced, pedagogically disastrous and incompetently produced. This was not just about presenting a different perspective, or interpretation, but undermining the discipline itself, as was demonstrated by the numerous critiques that appeared at that time.

Another target was the important �Towards Freedom� project of the Indian Council of Historical Research. The objective of this project was to comprehensively compile documents relating to India�s freedom struggle for the period 1937-1947. Volumes related to the project that were in the process of being published were withdrawn, and the project itself was abandoned. The NDA government, especially the minister of Human Resource Development (which provided financial support for the project), were determined to scrap the project because it was realised that the comprehensive documentation of the freedom struggle would run counter to the Sangh parivar�s version of the history of the freedom struggle and expose its disruptive role. Moreover, a number of Marxist historians (though not all) were associated with the project.

One could, of course, cite numerous other examples, including tampering with history textbooks in states where the BJP was in power. Eventually, it was after the UPA government came to power that the NDA-mandated NCERT textbooks were withdrawn, and the �Towards Freedom� project was restored.

Nevertheless, the offensive continues, often insidiously. On the one hand the processes of the judicial system are resorted to so as to subvert, in the name of upholding, human rights and civil liberties in such a manner that the process itself amounts to inflicting punishment on historians and scholars or institutions engaged in historical research. On the other hand straightforward violence is resorted to. As a matter of fact the threat of violence, with all the intimidation that it implies, is always present even when �normal� democratic forms of protest are adopted.

The systematic communalisation/saffronisation of history textbooks by governments of BJP-ruled states has been well-documented in the media and through various studies. In Gujarat the demonisation of minorities, particularly Muslims, in school textbooks is a trend that has been present for quite some time but has become more conspicuous under the Modi regime which has also thought it fit to glorify Hitler and the Nazis in the class IX social science textbook which states: �Hitler adopted aggressive policy (sic!) and led the Germans towards ardent nationalism�.

In Karnataka, the previous government headed by H D Kumaraswamy, which had senior state-level BJP leader D H Shankaramurthy as its minister for Higher Education, was embroiled in a controversy over a statement made by Shankaramurthy to the effect that all references to Tipu Sultan should be deleted from school textbooks. According Shankaramurthy, Tipu was �anti-Kannada� and �glorifying Tipu�s achievements was not in the interest of students�. This statement was reminiscent of the virulent campaign launched by the Sangh parivar against the screening of the TV serial �Sword of Tipu Sultan� in 1989 as part of a purely communal agenda (this was one of the campaigns that was intended to fuel communal passions in the build-up to the Babri Masjid demolition).

Recently the Department of History, Delhi University, became the victim of a campaign of this kind when a handful of people, including ABVP activists, who had little to do with history-teaching or with the discipline generally, objected to the inclusion of an essay entitled �Three Hundred Ramayanas: Five Examples and Three Thoughts on Translation� among the suggested readings for a concurrent course on Ancient Indian Culture in the B A (Honours) programme. The essay was written by the eminent scholar, translator and poet A K Ramanujan. Ramanujan was an authority on Indian oral folktales. He taught at the University of Chicago for several decades till his death in 1993. The essay has been available in print since 1991, and an expanded version was included by OUP in The Collected Essays of A K Ramanujan (New Delhi, 1999), edited by Vinay Dharwadker (pp131-160). The essay is really a celebration of the Ramayana and its wonderful diversity, and yet its inclusion was objected to because it was allegedly trying to denigrate the holy epic! Further, as the statement issued by the Department of History noted in response to the objections:

When readings are prescribed in a course, it is not essential that the course-designers, teachers, or students should agree with or defend each and every word therein. In fact debate, dissent, and dialogue are important parts of the discipline of history. It may be pointed out that
the terms that have apparently caused offence to certain individuals should in no way be construed as mischievous or slanderous. There is no question whatsoever of intending or attempting to denigrate or hurt the sentiments of any culture, religion, tradition, or community.

The aim of the course in question is to teach university students (who are, after all, young adults) to be able to analyse a variety of source material academically, analytically, and without embarrassment or denigration. That is the spirit in which the course was framed and that is
the spirit in which we believe it is being taught.

The objections were followed by a violent protest against the department on 25 February 2008, during the course of which a few protestors who had come to meet the head of the department, Professor S Z H Jafri, accompanied by the crew of a television channel, went on a rampage�physically assaulting the head, breaking windowpanes, upturning furniture, flinging books, tearing papers, damaging doors and almirahs. Incidentally, police personnel who were present while all this was going on preferred to remain spectators. It required students of the department to come out of their classes, and put an end to the vandalism through their intervention.

A case was filed in the Delhi High Court against the inclusion of the essay among the suggested readings. The Court rejected the petition. It is significant that students of history spontaneously organised a massive demonstration in the university campus to register their protest against the attempts by Sangh busybodies to meddle in the teaching of history through violence and intimidation.

The Sangh parivar has been furthering its communal agenda by resorting to similar tactics on other fronts as well and these must be seen as part of a larger strategy. The hounding, through a massive communal campaign, of one of India�s pre-eminent modern artists, M F Husain, provides ample evidence of the designs of the parivar. Violence, intimidation, the internet, and court cases were used in this campaign as well, forcing Husain into exile in his old age. That the executive machinery of the state, under a Congress-led ministry at the centre, failed to provide him with protection or security, and appeared to be largely sympathetic to those who were engaged in the anti-Husain campaign, does not augur well for secularism and democracy in India.

Unfortunately the Congress has been complicit through silence, or has at times itself taken the initiative in promoting the communalisation of history-writing in its eagerness to compete for political space with communal formations, as in the case of Maharashtra where it has been pursuing a line of �soft-Hindutva� which was apparent in its response to the attack on the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute (2004) or in its tacit approval of the dangerous principle that history textbooks should be vetted by religious organisations.

The judiciary had to intervene in the Husain case as well to ensure that justice was done. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul of the Delhi High Court in his landmark judgment in this matter underlined the need for legislation to �prevent harassment of artists, sculptors, authors, filmmakers, etc., in different creative fields�. The enactment of such legislation is of course urgently required. What is more important, however, is the political will to engage in a consistent struggle against communalism, which is possible only under the leadership of the Left.