(This is a reprint from NewsBred).
Piddi, my pet, was livid. He had got hold of Friday’s Indian Express (January 11, 2019). I try to keep the newspaper off his limits due to Piddi’s chronic high blood pressure. Something or other in the newspaper seems to get his goat up. Today it was an editorial about the skeletons of a “couple” discovered in a Harappa grave in Rakhigarhi in Haryana.
A little background to this Harappa grave is in order. In 2016, archaeologists and scientists from India and South Korea found these two “very rare” skeletons in this Indus Valley city. For two years they researched the chronology and possible reasons behind the deaths. Their findings are now out. “We believe they were a couple,” said the archaeologist Vasant Shinde who led the team, to the BBC.
Indian Express is having fits over the findings. Its’ editorial–no news report or columns, mind you—which implies the stand a newspaper has on the subject is bigotry of the worst kind. The editorial writer thinks it’s an “excessive claim” that the skeletons were of a couple and that the institution of marriage was developed in the Indus Valley civilization. The editorial says the “pre-history is a land of maybes.” The piece ends with an absolute horror: “There’s no ruling out of the possibility that they (the skeletons) were just good friends. Or an aunt and her nephew.”
It’s this “aunt and her nephew” snide which had Piddi ramming his head on the wall in despair. The dialogue between us went something like this:
Piddi: What does the newspaper mean by aunt and her nephew? Isn’t it to suggest a licentious relationship? That too towards Hindus?
Me: You can’t say it was a snide against the Hindus. It must have been said in light humour.
Piddi: In that case the light humour could’ve been factual. Relationships and marriages within family is more common in Christianity and Islam. After all, Charles Darwin had married his cousin Emma; more than one Caliph in Islam had married their cousins. This obviously is meant to snub Hindus.
Me: You are being churlish Piddi. Christianity and Islam hadn’t even existed—they were only barbarians—when a highly sophisticated Indus Valley civilization was in existence thousands of years ago.
Piddi: Oh, come on. Can’t you see the writer has termed the scientific conclusion of “they-being-couple” as nothing better than “excessive claim.” Do you mean to say that these rent-a-byte journos know better than a whole archaeologists/scientists team which spent no less than two years on the subject?
Piddi: Are you telling me that you agree with Indian Express’ assertion that “pre-history is a land of maybes”?
Me: Isn’t it so Piddi. A lot of pre-history could be a matter of conjecture.
Piddi: In that case, what should be we make of sexuality of Jesus where Saints have variously claimed to HE being a celibate, heterosexual, homosexual and practicing polygamy. The life of Muhammad only began being chronicled 4-5 generations after his death.
Me: But the writer is mentioning pre-history Piddi. These are post-history figures of the Christian era.
Piddi: Oh, so why there still is a “maybes” around these post-history figures. Why not be definite. Why not say that King Arthur definitely existed when historians are still debating his existence. Or Robin Hood whose historicity is not conclusively proven to this date. Or that legendary Homer, the greatest of them all, probably didn’t exist?
Me: I think Piddi you are going a little overboard…
Piddi: Not me, I am just being factual. It’s these diehard Hindus and defenders of faith who allow such nonsense to keep going on. Haven’t we paid enough price for our sloth in our history? Why do we allow these Marxists, Macaulytes and Muslimytes such utter nonsense? To call a scientific discovery as an “excessive claim” or “pre-history-is-maybes” or “aunt-nephew” skeletons? Why not abuse back as “editor-and-his-stepdaughter” jibe?
Piddi is still hysterical. His fine sense of history, as I have mentioned before, is a trouble for all of us. We have kept him in kennel. Meanwhile, we have decided to bring Indian Express at home under pyjama from tomorrow.
My first instinct on reading this Times of India (29.1.2017) headline was that the likes of Romilla Thapar and Irfan Habib have been pressed into service by that bird of the same feather, the English Mainstream Media. The actual piece though relies on the evidence of two Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) historians and one from Delhi University.
First thing first. The reporter could’ve asked 10 different historians and would have arrived at a completely different conclusion if she had chosen so. That’s the first bias, the report is not balanced which is the first lesson a journalist is taught but probably this one was given a licence to be illiterate.
I need to dwell on Romilla Thapar and Irfan Habib as my reflex reaction for these two Left-Congress promoted, pampered and fattened historians for decades peddled the lie that Saraswati River never existed and that Aryans indeed drove the original inhabitants of our land into southern India on whom the title of “Dravidian” was affixed. The Aryans gave us Sanskrit language and Vedic literature which we ignorant believed to be indigenous. Both claims have been proved to be bogus. There has been no evidence of Aryan invasion in India, our genealogy has been shown to be unbroken for 8,000 years, Or for instance this matter of Ashoka’s remorse after Kalinga War is humbug. This is THE real history. But if you go to interpreters like Thapar and Habib, or for that matter these illiterate AMU scholars and DU professors, you surely would arrive at the bogus confirmation of your own agenda..
This brings us to the history bit. We all know history is written by the conquerors. You write what you want to be read. You hide what you want to hide. That’s the method every historian adopts. Surely, our despicable English mainstream media does. India treats its history not as “Itihasa.” It’s always people’s history, not kings. That’s why you don’t find any king’s burial in Mohanjodaro or Harappa or for that matter in Kalibangan, Rakhigarhi, Hanumangarh etc.
“Itihasa” as History is an affix West stamped on us in order to hijack and distort our cultural heritage. In India, Itihasa is never removed from oral traditions. It relies more on “smriti” (memory) and “shruti “(oral) traditions, not on written documents. It’s because our Rishis and Yogis understood that history will always be victim of misrepresentation. That’s why Hinduism has never relied on historical timelines which is central to Islam, Christianity and Judaism—all Abrahamic religions. Our Rishis and Yogis relied on smriti and shruti. India has always relied on oral traditions, not on written traditions which West employs less to document but more to twist and manipulate to their own ends. History is never for masses to understand in West. They are subjected to State control. That’s why you have so many historical societies in West. Trust me, the history that reaches us is mostly fraud.
History must never be treated in literal sense. Certainly not in written manner. Those tales which are passed on orally, through shruti, are far more reliable chronicles than the documents which paid historians and propagandists like English mainstream media indulges in. In such descriptions, 100 years from now on, the deaths of Akhlaq and Rohith would duly find mention in history but the deaths of BJP workers in Kerala, Karnataka or in West Bengal would go completely unreported. That’s history for you.
So in that sense, the reporter’s attempt to say Padmavati is not history is right. By another logic, those who say that Padmavati is real history are also right. It’s defenders could “historically” claim that Khilji’s lust for Hindu queens is an unassailable fact. Khilji fell for Queen Kamala Devi of Gujarat and the daughter of King Ramachandra of Devagiri. Even Amir Khusro, the court poet of Khilji, in his Khazain-ul-Fatuh, makes a covert allusion to Padmavati episode.
This illiterate reporter states that Allauddin Khilji was India’s most able administrator. She probably hasn’t read of the 20,000 boy-slaves Khilji kept in his harem. She probably hasn’t heard of Jazia Tax or thousands of temples Khilji destroyed. Or Khilji and Malik Kafur dalliance. She chose what good Khilji did. She ignored what was equally true but didn’t suit her agnda.That’s history for you. She says that the “Padmavati episode” was used to demonize Islamic empires. “Demonize” Islamic empire? So were they paragons of virtue? Isn’t this assertion scandalous?
Only one question to this reporter is enough to put her in spot: If Padmavati is a legend that Hindus have fostered how come they could do it as a subject race? Isn’t it possible that they relied on “smriti” and “shruti.” And hence no written records. Could it be that the chroniclers of Islamic rulers never allowed any written record of that period to survive? The fact that Padmavati has survived in the cultural memory of this land is enough to treat as “sacred” No need to affix it with the burden of “Itihasa” or history.