Tuesday, 17 March 2015

History writing in India


Published: January 6, 2015 00:00 IST | Updated: January 6, 2015 05:56 IST

A critical approach to theories on ancient India

T. Satyamurthy
T. Satyamurthy
History writing in India has become a sensitive initiative, carrying ideological leanings and authors’ personal views rather than integrating new findings into an ever-growing perspective. In fact, available archaeological evidence places Indian civilization as a manifestation different from how it is familiar in the rest of the world. Indian history so far available is squeezed into a western-centric framework through artificial and alien terminology: barbarism, feudalism, Aryanisation and class war.
It is in this background that Rabindranath Tagore affirmed that the present brand of Indian history is a nightmarish account of India. On reading it and looking at the archaeological material, one feels that historians are rather commanded by the comforts of conforming. The book under review analytically brings out recent trends in historical research and puts forth perspectives through a collection of seven articles by the author and eight reviews of books published on related subjects.
It begins with an introduction that there is no sense of national pride in the intellectual horizon of the Indian historians, who blindly follow the colonial version of Indian history. They projected Ancient India as virtual utopia, starting with the Vedic Age where the people were cattle-herders looking for good pastures, without familiarity with agriculture and grains like rice. Besides Vedic references on ploughmen and agriculture, many archaeological sites including Jhusi near Allahabad have yielded proof of rice cultivation in the region during the Neolithic phase, possibly as far as back as 9000 BCE., much earlier than the dates fixed by these historians for the Vedic period.
In the next phase, the author projects Indus Valley civilisation as the origin of many cultures of India. Archaeological sites have yielded many artefacts that evidence a cultural continuity with later Indian civilization. The discovery of ornaments, gaming materials, use of conch for libations as well as trumpeting, the ritual use of water for purification, important mode of worship such as the mother goddess and linga indicate the long connection between these cultures. In all respects the author tries to show that Indus civilisation is so characteristically Indian and all later cultures owe something to it. In fact, many of them reflect that there was no significant break or hiatus.
On the notion of Aryanisation of India on the basis of introduction of iron, the use of horses, and knowledge of spoked wheels, ample material is provided by him to shatter the theory. The beginning of the use of iron was previously dated to 1000-1200 BCE and attributed to the contribution and eastward migration of the imaginary Aryans. Now, recent archaeological excavations push back the use of iron to 1800 BCE (type site Malharin, U.P.). This fact corroborates the early use of iron in India and attests that India was indeed an independent centre for the development of the working of iron. According to Rakesh Tiwari, the present Director General, ASI, it overlaps the late Harappan stage, bridging the bronze-iron ages.
Among the faunal remains of the Mature Indus civilisation levels of Harappa, Lothal, Surkotada and Kalibangan horse bones have been identified by a number of scholars and attested by the Zoological Survey of India. Equally revealing discovery is the presence of spoked wheels in the mature Indus civilisation levels in Rakhigardi and Banawali (Haryana). The Aryan myth was introduced to demonstrate that the present cultural assemblage of India is not an inherent product of Indian soil, but brought by Indo-Aryans. Such scholars/historians are unaware of the socio-political implication of the premise as it divided the population into two major groups Aryans and Dravidians. On another issue raised by J.M. Kenoyer and Kimbly Heuston over the human occupation of the Yamuna-Ganga river valley by Aryans only during 2000BCE, he points out the earliest level of Alamgirpur as datable to the middle of third millennium BCE and hence rules out settlement by new communities.
Focussing on India’s cultural unity, the author takes up the distribution of Northern Black Polished Pottery (NBP), a distinctive Ganga plain pottery of 800 BCE, as an important chronological marker and calibrates the date of Korkkai and Alankulam in Tamil Nadu around 500 BCE almost contemporary with that in Ganga plain. He corroborates this date with the sherds with Tamil - Brahmi unearthed in Porunthal near Palani and accepts the early date for Tamil-Brahmi. In fact, this can be considered as the turning point in accepting early date for Tamil-Brahmi script.
One clear unity that India possessed throughout history has been geographical and with the help of pottery, he traces various ancient Indian dense routes giving material expression to the inter-connection between different areas and the growth of a shared culture.
Reviewing Dr. Upender Singh’s book Rethinking Early Medieval India — A Reader , he refutes the theory of ancient Indian governance as a feudal set-up on the grounds of increased number of land grant inscriptions to the privileged select few. Numerically such inscriptions constitute only a very small percentage and other archaeological evidence of material remains of life on agriculture, settlements, technology, art and trade of the period bring out a different scenario.
Evaluating the present trend in the functioning of various institutions under the Union Department of Culture, the CAG’s report is analysed critically; and, on the functioning of the ASI, the author laments the non-publication of many archaeological excavation reports and points out that Indian archaeology lacks scientific support for academic interpretations. Nevertheless, the author is silent on the fact that ASI was headed by non-technical bureaucrats for more than a decade.
One central focus throughout the volume is the role of Indian archaeologists hankering after so-called international recognition and accepting their lesser role without demur and unfailing in their praise of the work done by their Euro-American colleagues. Their devotion to the western world’s recognition paves the way for an unholy conglomeration of various interest groups to exploit Indian archaeological materials for misinterpretations. On the same grounds the Pattinam excavation in Kerala was hijacked by the western world while Indian archaeologists were mere spectators. He concludes that the Government of India should resort to remedial measures.
Besides its critical approach, the volume provides updated archaeological material on climate in Indus valley, on the trail of Sarasvati, the lost river, urbanisation in the Ancient Indus Valley, decline of Buddhism in India, the status of State religion in Ancient India, all of which would be useful for research scholars in Archaeology and History. In fine it is a welcome addition.
The author projects Indus Valley civilisation as the origin of many cultures of India. Archaeological sites have yielded many artefacts that evidence a cultural continuity with later Indian civilisation


Printable version | Mar 17, 2015 9:40:17 PM | http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-features/tp-bookreview/a-critical-approach-to-theories-on-ancient-india/article6758357.ece

The Bengal Famine


The Bengal Famine: How the British engineered the worst genocide in human history for profit



“I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion. The famine was their own fault for breeding like rabbits.”
                                                                                                                                                                                                                    -Winston Churchill
The British had a ruthless economic agenda when it came to operating in India and that did not include empathy for native citizens. Under the British Raj, India suffered countless famines. But the worst hit was Bengal. The first of these was in 1770, followed by severe ones in 1783, 1866, 1873, 1892, 1897 and lastly 1943-44. Previously, when famines had hit the country, indigenous rulers were quick with useful responses to avert major disasters. After the advent of the British, most of the famines were a consequence of monsoonal delays along with the exploitation of the country’s natural resources by the British for their own financial gain. Yet they did little to acknowledge the havoc these actions wrought. If anything, they were irritated at the inconveniences in taxing the famines brought about.
The first of these famines was in 1770 and was ghastly brutal. The first signs indicating the coming of such a huge famine manifested in 1769 and the famine itself went on till 1773. It killed approximately 10 million people, millions more than the Jews incarcerated during the Second World War. It wiped out one third the population of Bengal. John Fiske, in his book “The Unseen World”, wrote that the famine of 1770 in Bengal was far deadlier than the Black Plague that terrorized Europe in the fourteenth century. Under the Mughal rule, peasants were required to pay a tribute of 10-15 per cent of their cash harvest. This ensured a comfortable treasury for the rulers and a wide net of safety for the peasants in case the weather did not hold for future harvests. In 1765 the Treaty of Allahabad was signed and East India Company took over the task of collecting the tributes from the then Mughal emperor Shah Alam II. Overnight the tributes, the British insisted on calling them tributes and not taxes for reasons of suppressing rebellion, increased to 50 percent. The peasants were not even aware that the money had changed hands. They paid, still believing that it went to the Emperor.
Partial failure of crop was quite a regular occurrence in the Indian peasant’s life. That is why the surplus stock, which remained after paying the tributes, was so important to their livelihood. But with the increased taxation, this surplus deteriorated rapidly. When partial failure of crops came in 1768, this safety net was no longer in place. The rains of 1769 were dismal and herein the first signs of the terrible draught began to appear. The famine occurred mainly in the modern states of West Bengal and Bihar but also hit Orissa, Jharkhand and Bangladesh. Bengal was, of course, the worst hit. Among the worst affected areas were Birbum and Murshidabad in Bengal. Thousands depopulated the area in hopes of finding sustenance elsewhere, only to die of starvation later on. Those who stayed on perished nonetheless. Huge acres of farmland were abandoned. Wilderness started to thrive here, resulting in deep and inhabitable jungle areas. Tirhut, Champaran and Bettiah in Bihar were similarly affected in Bihar.
Prior to this, whenever the possibility of a famine had emerged, the Indian rulers would waive their taxes and see compensatory measures, such as irrigation, instituted to provide as much relief as possible to the stricken farmers. The colonial rulers continued to ignore any warnings that came their way regarding the famine, although starvation had set in from early 1770. Then the deaths started in 1771. That year, the company raised the land tax to 60 per cent in order to recompense themselves for the lost lives of so many peasants. Fewer peasants resulted in less crops that in turn meant less revenue. Hence the ones who did not yet succumb to the famine had to pay double the tax so as to ensure that the British treasury did not suffer any losses during this travesty.
After taking over from the Mughal rulers, the British had issued widespread orders for cash crops to be cultivated. These were intended to be exported. Thus farmers who were used to growing paddy and vegetables were now being forced to cultivate indigo, poppy and other such items that yielded a high market value for them but could be of no relief to a population starved of food. There was no backup of edible crops in case of a famine. The natural causes that had contributed to the draught were commonplace. It was the single minded motive for profit that wrought about the devastating consequences. No relief measure was provided for those affected. Rather, as mentioned above, taxation was increased to make up for any shortfall in revenue. What is more ironic is that the East India Company generated a profited higher in 1771 than they did in 1768.

Although the starved populace of Bengal did not know it yet, this was just the first of the umpteen famines, caused solely by the motive for profit, that was to slash across the country side. Although all these massacres were deadly in their own right, the deadliest one to occur after 1771 was in 1943 when three million people died and others resorted to eating grass and human flesh in order to survive.
Winston Churchill, the hallowed British War prime minister who saved Europe from a monster like Hitler was disturbingly callous about the roaring famine that was swallowing Bengal’s population. He casually diverted the supplies of medical aid and food that was being dispatched to the starving victims to the already well supplied soldiers of Europe. When entreated upon he said, “Famine or no famine, Indians will breed like rabbits.” The Delhi Government sent a telegram painting to him a picture of the horrible devastation and the number of people who had died. His only response was, “Then why hasn’t Gandhi died yet?”
Image Source
Winston Churchill: Image Source







This Independence Day it is worthwhile to remember that the riches of the west were built on the graves of the East. While we honour the brave freedom fighters (as we should), it is victims like these, the ones sacrificed without a moment’s thought, who paid the ultimate price. Shed a tear in their memory and strive to make the most of this hard won independence that we take for granted today. Pledge to stand up those whose voice the world refuses to hear because they are too lowly to matter. To be free is a great privilege. But as a great superhero once said, “With great freedom comes great responsibility.”

http://yourstory.com/2014/08/bengal-famine-genocide/