IS HISTORY OF INDIA WORTH LEARNING?
There was a great philosopher, J. Krishnamurthy. His preachings have been compiled in a book titled as “Freedom From Thoughts” in English and “Gyat Se Mukti” in Hindi.
On going through the said book, it would be observed that our thoughts about anything, any matter, anybody are nothing but result of our understanding about such thing, matter or person. On the basis our understanding, we form thought over the subject matter and cling to such thought as if how the subject matter has been understood by anyone else is unfounded. Difference of opinion thus takes place.
Before proceeding further, I would like to make it clear that I am not talking of those persons whose understanding is, by and large, same but, because of their vested interest, the present themselves before the world as if they are diagonally opposite to one another. Such people clash, not because of divergence of views or understanding of the issue but because of their own interest. They know that their views, by and large, converge but, in order to create their own constituency; they show that their views are altogether different. This we see more in politics and perhaps especially in our country.
I am talking of those people who approach the issue honestly but do not take holistic view of the issue. They approach the issue from different directions. On approaching the issue, they don’t revolve around it to understand it from all angles. If one approaches the front of an object, he forms view according to how the object looks like from the front. He does not bother to go to the sides or the back of the object in order to grasp the whole picture of the object.
After observing the object from front, he returns and narrates his own version of the object. By narrating his version of the object, he forms his own constituency. Those who have not approached the object are made to believe as to how the object looks like.
Similarly, the other people who approach the object from different sides form altogether different opinions about the object. These people too come back and narrate their own version of how the object looks like and form different constituencies. What is the result? The result is that so many constituencies come into being and the people of each constituency are deprived from understanding the real nature of the object.
I was not a student of history. Therefore, I am not going to write what the historians have written about our country or about the great persons. I was a student of science. Therefore, I approach anything with scientific temper. This is the reason that I am approaching history of India with scientific temper.
My approach to history of India is based upon what I am observing to day in India. I ask whether Shri T.N. Sheshan created history by introduction of drastic reform in the manner in which the election was being fought before him or not? I ask whether Vinoba Bhave who launched and run Bhoodan movement created history of a sort or not? I ask whether Jay Prakash Narayan before the dreaded dacoits had lay arms had created history or not? There are so many great persons who have created history. But where are they? Who of such great personalities find mention in the history? Perhaps none of them. We have forgotten all of them. Tomorrow, we would forget Late Shri P.V. Narsinha Rao and Dr. Manmohan Singh who have laid foundation of the economy of this country. Tomorrow we would forget Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam, the missile man. Our children would not be taught in history so much about the said personalities as they would be taught about the rulers because it the rulers who are creating and making history. Thus, I observe that the present day history is what people in power today present before us. My observation is whosoever is in power today is making history. There are others too who are trying hard to make and create history but they are forced to subdue by the powerful organs and the institutions of the society.
Let’s see what happened in the past. In Mughal India, there would have been some people who would have honest approach to the past of India but they could not afford to run writ. The approach, method, principles, and yardstick of the pre-Mughal India people must have been altogether different from those of the Mughal India people. Today, many books have been banned. In the same or like manner, many books who would have contained valuable information about the past India would have been banned or destroyed in Mughal India with the result that the post Mughal India people have now been deprived from knowing what kind of pre-Mughal India was. The only sources of knowledge about the past India are the books which have escaped the wrath of Moghul rulers. These books don’t find place in history of India because we have been made to understand history on the lines of British rulers.
What happened during Moghul era, continued to happen during British era. The emphasis of the British rulers was to wipe out the past so that their culture could be imposed. They made all out efforts to impose their own culture, ethos, values etc. The manner and method adopted by the British rulers was, however, different from that adopted by the Moghuls. Moghuls used force to impose their own culture on the Indians whereas the British rulers used the means of education model for the said purpose. Whereas Moghuls used force to get Indians converted to Islam, the British rulers used missionaries and inducement to get the poor Indians converted to Christians. Because of conversion and imposition of culture by the Moghuls and British rulers, Indian society got fragmented badly so much so that, perhaps, the caste system which is in vogue in India today started to take place during Moghul era to escape the wrath of the Moghuls.
In view of the above, what is taught today in history is what it was given to take shape by the Moghuls and the British rulers and, hence, at least I don’t believe in it. I don’t believe that the caste system like the one which is vogue in today’s India was prevalent in pre- Moghul India. This is so because, in the Indian society, where the concepts of “Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam” and “Sarve Bhavantu Sukhinah, Sarve Santu Niramayah” were the ideals, there must have been no room for discrimination on the basis of caste or creed.
What I believe is that, whereas in the Moghul era, the caste system took place to use it by the Indians as shield against the tyranny of the Moghuls rulers, in British India, it was used by the British rulers to divide and rule the people of India.
In Moghul India, the primary targets of the Moghul rulers were the Kshatriyas who too were the rulers and had arms in their hands. In order that the people might not become the targets of Moghuls, a large number of people would have adopted Islam or made Moghuls to believe on the basis of profession of such people that they were altogether different from Kshatriyas. For instance, it is said that Aahir, Jaat, Gujar and Rajput are all from Kshatriya origin. This seems to be true as there is lot of similarity between them as for as their temperament is concerned. Today, however, they are not one because they have been divided by the rulers of India.
In the British era, the targets were the socially, educationally and financially weaker sections of India. The immediate need of such people was the social, educational and financial uplifting. Such people were not interested in the old Indian glory and culture. It did not matter to them who were and who should be their rulers. The British rulers took advantage of this situation. What the British rulers began to do? In order to pursue their policy of divide and rule, they began to fish in the troubled water by poisoning the mind of these sections of the society as well as the Indian Muslims. On one hand, they were luring the weaker sections of the Indian society, on the other hand they were creating bogey in the minds of the Muslims against the rest of the Indians (including the weaker sections). I observe that had the British rulers taught all Indians about the old Indian principle that all Indians are brothers ( “Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam”) and hence they should come together, shrink the social gaps, strengthen social bonds and ensure that all be happy and healthy ( “Sarve Bhavantu Sukhinah, Sarve Santu Niramayah”), they would not have executed the policy of divide and rule. It was the design of the British rulers not to divide British India on the basis of the religion but also on the basis of the classes. Unfortunately, the British rulers succeeded in their design inasmuch as some leaders of India fell prey to it. It was only Gandhi ji because of whom we Indians are saved though in tattered form. Why in tattered form because today’s India is badly fragmented on the basis of the caste and creed and continue to be fragmented because caste politics and the politics based on religion has taken giant shape.
Let’s see what kind of history about post- independence India has been taught to us. I am not going to dwell upon the condition of the people. After independence, the pioneers of the country were Gandhi ji, Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, Pandit Jwara Lal Nehru, Sardar Ballabh Bhai Patel, Dr. Rajendra Prasad, Acharya J.B. Kriplani, Pandit Madan Mohan Malviya and many others. All of them contributed to the cause of freedom struggle. What is irony, however, is that, whatever was the condition of the people, none of the aforesaid leaders except Gandhi ji, made sincere effort to take a holistic view of India. The understanding of all the aforesaid leaders about the people of India was not the same. Gandhi ji had seen India from all the angles and formed the view that India lived in villages. He was a real guide. In essence, however, his understanding of India was not taken in account with the result that the villages of this country are still languishing. It was Gandhi ji who had really read India. His thinking was not based on any other model. He was not so-called economist. By economist, I mean the person who had studied the economic models that were prevalent in the west or in the communist countries. Gandhi ji, as I see, was not influenced by the social, political, educational and economic models which had been in the west or in communist countries. His thoughts were shaped keeping in view the real Indian condition. Though he too was a barrister and got education from England, he was not influenced by the system and culture which the British had adopted. On the other hand, barring few one, most of leaders were greatly influenced by the social, political, educational and economic models of the west and the communist countries. Therefore, without due deliberation as to whether such western models would suit to Indians or not, most of such models were adopted and thrust upon India. The post-independence history which had been taught to us in the schools was greatly influenced by the historians who had the left leaning. What we had been taught in the schools about India, the Indian leaders did not depict the real picture so much so that Gandhi ji, the father of the nation has not found due place in the post- independence generation. Had Gandhi ji been truly taught in post- independence India, we would not have faced such social, political, educational and economic problems which we, and in particular, the people of rural India are facing now. Therefore, history of India in the present form is not worth learning and it needs overall without caring for hue and cry that could be raised by the vested interest.
