Skip to main content

Learn History, or your Geography will be changed



I was asked a question, 'Why do you keep raising historical issues?'


What is history but a fable agreed upon?

The version of history we know, has been given to us, by vested interests. So a hot debate has erupted between groups in favour of and those against re-writing Indian history books and redefining the national narrative. 

Is this a storm in a tea cup or is it something very important?

First a bit of background.
Significant parts of India have been occupied by a variety of foreign conquerors for more than 1000 years.  The occupiers wrote their own version of Indian history.  Some of it factual, a lot of it masala. Most documents and artefacts that could have helped define our history have been spirited away, by conquerors or have been destroyed.

History we are taught is always written by victors and conquerors, and they always project how great and noble they were and the civilising effect they had on the vanquished people.
Not all victories are military, sometimes the conquest can be a soft one, meaning cultural, social, religious, economical etc.

"India conquered and dominated China culturally for two thousand years without ever having to send a single soldier across her border."



Where does our current understanding of history comes from? In fact several sources.
In 1947, Britain, had to ensure that an independent India would remain dependent on and still be tied to Britain's apron strings, militarily, strategically, economically and politically. 

So the British made sure the country's leadership remained in the hands of numerous Anglophiles, such as Jinnah and Nehru. People who looked like Indians but whose thoughts and beliefs were British.

"You realise, Galbraith, I am the last Englishman to rule in India."

______________________


So one set of history was written by Muslim conquerors, and the other by British Historians, both with great bias. Then this bleached history of India was both preserved and enhanced by Nehru's legacy. 

Much of this distorted and factually incorrect versions of history, pales in comparison to what distortions and damage the Communists inflicted on the Indian national narrative and psyche. 

The communists stated position were and remain against Indian independence in 1947 and they have always vowed to break up India. They planned to do this and almost succeeded by a process called  ['Ideological Subversion' as explained by KGB master spy Yuri Bezmenov who was based in India for more than two decades.

Since independence, elected Congressmen and other politicians sought ministerial and executive positions for enhancing their wealth and influence. 

The elected Communists very successfully sought to control the minds of the Indian people by demanding and getting control of all the universities education boards, information and broadcasting etc.  The communists succeeded, beyond their greatest expectations. 

Now our educationists and the media have completely brainwashed the minds of past and present Indians making them despise India and all things Indian. No where else in the world do a people take so much joy in self flagellation, as Indians do, denigrating themselves, and their fellow Indians and culture down into and below the mud. 

Now a new generation of leaders, citizens seek a more positive socially relevant,  national  and regional narrative. A more honest and realistic portrayal of Indian history.

Battle lines have been drawn between one group consisting of dynastic elites, the well organised communists, the separatists, various minority groups, militant outfits of Jihadis and Naxals on one side and the hot tempered, fiery Nationalists on the other.   

The Nationalists. have only recently captured political power.  They have simply side-stepped main stream Indian media using social media. They have also started easing the stranglehold of Leftists on the educational institutions and history books. In addition the Nationalists are  working closely with grass-root people across both rural and urban India. Sometimes they are too enthusiastic in swinging 'facts' the other way

In the coming days we will see many more skirmishes, but it will be the nationalists who will be likely to win. Whatever the outcome, the results will be a more multifaceted balanced portrayal of Indian culture, values and history.

The present and the future are almost always based on the past. Those who ignore their history lessons will almost always receive shocking and painful geography lessons.

______________


Hu Shih, (1891-1962), Chinese philosopher in Republican China. He was ambassador to the U.S. (1938-42) and chancellor of Peking University (1946-48).
John Kenneth Galbraith was one of the most famous American economists, and ambassador to India. A great friend of Nehru.

Comments

  1. Don't forget the elitist English traditions that you and colleagues were taught in school. Only when your generation is replaced by the next generation of Indians, will there be massive changes in the history of India. They will not look back to contemplate the multiple re-writes of Indian history, they will not waste their time thinking about the past, and rights and wrongs, but will blaze an unencumbered path into the future. They will not have to think of high tea and biscuits or wear a tie and blazer to walk down Main Street.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Last thoughts and words of Emperor Aurangzeb

The 6th Mughal emperor of India, Aurangzeb was a brave but cruel man. While he was an excellent military leader, he was a weak administrator with poor understanding of economics. As a result he landed up being dependent on corrupt, fanatical people who only hungered for power and wealth.

Aurangzeb's lust for power was insatiable. In this quest he spared no one, imprisoning his own father, and slaughtering his brothers and nephews. He inherited an expanding empire which permitted him to rule the largest area of the Mughal empire's history, before he led it into decline. 

He felt that his actions had probably made him repugnant to the people and his legitimacy to rule would always be questioned. So he adopted a frugal life style and tried to be a good Muslim to appease the powerful clerics, soldiers, noblemen and the muslim public, which would allow him to rule effectively.

Like many other misguided men he came to believed that Islam meant only violent, subjugation and persecution.…

The Lopez Effect

Every now & then things get tough for a lot of organisations. This may be caused by technology, competition, recession or whatever. When the nasty stuff hits the fan, this is what typically happens at large organisations;

The CMD (Chairman & Managing Director) will call a meeting and scream and rant on how useless and lazy his entire management team is and how they have let the organisation's profitability slide. blah, blah, blah!!!!

The boss desperately searches for a scapegoat. Sometimes sacrificial lambs are found and a few heads roll and the situation only deteriorates because attacking people rather problems never helps. Sometimes the boss realises the truth, that there is no one individual or department or function that can be specifically blamed except the boss himself.

After venting his ire, the boss will issue a diktat to the management team. "I want my organisation to return to high profitability so this is what the team is going to do. I want you to reduce…

Ideology is not Philosophy

We often use words carelessly when communicating and that can lead to much confusion and even misunderstandings.  Take the case of the terms ideology and philosophy which are often used interchangeably. 

The ideologist believes that he or she is right and all those who disagree are wrong.
The philosopher believes that there may be differing perspectives and he or she might have missed something, or the other person has an alternate perspective, and they are  perfectly within their rights to have a differing view.

The ideologist is extremely confident, the philosopher always harbours doubts.
The ideologist is intolerant and if he has no choice will at best tolerate you. The philosopher respects you. 

The hallmark of a true civilisation is that there is scope for dissent, and yet be respected. 
As my friend Bala Adiga says, "One can always disagree without being disagreeable"
This is clearly the philosophy of the East evident in India and many parts of Asia.

The ideologist is masculin…