Historical models used to study Hinduism are indeed utterly obsolete: But we should not walk or fall into the Hindutva trap

Historical models used to study Hinduism are indeed utterly obsolete: But we should not walk or fall into the Hindutva trap

Sujay Rao Mandavilli

Ambedkar on Hinduism

Ambedkar or Bhimrao Ambedkar was one of the greatest Indian intellectuals to have lived. He was a social reformer, and the primary architect of the Indian constitution to boot.  He clashed famously with Gandhi on the issue of rights for Dalits or low caste Hindus, but played a major role in giving Dalits their political and social rights. In a survey conducted a couple of years ago, he was voted as the greatest Indians of the twentieth century since Mahatma Gandhi. A rare honour and a rare privilege, indeed. However, his views on Hinduism were not very encouraging, and he is even believed to have said, “I was born a Hindu, but I solemnly assure you that I will not die a Hindu.” In 1956, a couple of months before he passed away, he embraced Buddhism in front of a large gathering.  

Amedkar even went on record saying, “The first and foremost thing that must be recognized is that Hindu Society is a myth. The name Hindu is itself a foreign name. It was given by the Mohammedans to the natives for the purpose of distinguishing themselves [from them]. It does not occur in any Sanskrit work prior to the Mohammedan invasion. They did not feel the necessity of a common name, because they had no conception of their having constituted a community. Hindu Society as such does not exist. It is only a collection of castes. Each caste is conscious of its existence. Its survival is the be-all and end-all of its existence. Castes do not even form a federation. A caste has no feeling that it is affiliated to other castes, except when there is a Hindu-Muslim riot. On all other occasions, each caste endeavours to segregate itself and to distinguish itself from other castes." Ambedkar is only perhaps partly true here. India has had a five thousand year old civilization, and caste was not always not the basis of Hindu or Indian society As a matter of fact, Ambedkar’s views are obsolete and grossly over-simplified. They are not founded on the basis of latest historical models. There are also symbolic of binary thinking.

 

Ambedkar even went on to say, “To put the matter in general terms, Hinduism and social union are incompatible. By its very genius Hinduism believes in social separation, which is another name for social disunity and even creates social separation. If Hindus wish to be one, they will have to discard Hinduism. They cannot be one without violating Hinduism. Hinduism is the greatest obstacle to Hindu Unity. Hinduism cannot create that longing to belong which is the basis of all social unity. On the contrary Hinduism creates an eagerness to separate." We leave it to the readers to decide to what extent Ambedkar was right and to what extent Ambedkar was wrong. However, Ambedkar cannot be faulted entirely here. He was just a man of his times. Kancha Ilaiah is a contemporary Dalit activist. He is also a social reformer. He went on to state that he hated Hinduism. He may however, be somewhat oblivious and ignorant of the fact that lower caste Hindus are indeed Hindus, and that the origins of Hinduism are quite complex indeed; Brahmins alone did not contribute. Some aspects of Ancient Indian history such as the existence of the Indus Valley Civilization were not widely known during the time of Gandhi or Ambedkar. Some one hundred and fifty years ago, it was believed that the invasion of Alexander the Great in 324 BC was the first reliable date in Indian history. This date was gradually pushed back when more and more evidence was unearthed. Ambedkar, Kancha Ilaiah and others emphasized untouchability given their own unique and unfortunate personal experiences. Gandhi also fought against untouchability even if he believed in the caste system in some form. However, the history of Indian religious traditions is much more complex and variegated than this.

 

The term “Untouchability” is used to refer to the practice of discrimination against individuals and groups on the basis of their caste and occupation, particularly those who are at the bottom end of the caste hierarchy.  Untouchability has been practiced for an extremely long period of time in South Asia and elsewhere. It is based on the Indian caste system, and is considered to be highly exploitative. The term is most commonly associated with treatment of the Dalit communities in the Indian subcontinent who were considered highly polluting. In some cases, even their touch or their shadow would be considered polluting. Traditionally, the groups characterized as untouchable were those whose occupations and habits of life involved ritually "polluting" activities, such as pursuing a career based on killing (e.g. butchers or fishermen) or engaging in common contact with others' feces or sweat (e.g. manual scavengers, sweepers and washer men). According to the religious Hindu text, untouchables were not considered a part of the Varna or the caste system, and were therefore not treated like members of the other castes (i.e. Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Shudras). They were not allowed to drink water from tanks or enter temples. Untouchability may not have been mentioned in the Vedas; However, the caste system was:

 

When they divided Purusa how many portions did they make?
What do they call his mouth, his arms? What do they call his thighs and feet?
The Brahman was his mouth, of both his arms was the Rajanya made.
His thighs became the Vaishya, from his feet the Shudra was produced (Rig Veda 10:90 11-12)

Even though the term caste is attributed to the Portuguese term Casta, discrimination did exist since ancient times. This is what some Hindutva groups want to forget. The Manusmrti  which is also known as the Manava-Dharmasastra or the Laws of Manu, is one of the many holy books of Hinduism. The text is in Sanskrit, is dated to the first to third centuries after Christ, and long after Buddha lived. This text was translated into English my Sir William Jones in 1776. This text extols and reinforces birth-based inequality of the social and economic kind that are inescapable and unchangeable. According to this text, professions must also be determined and followed according to one’s birth i.e. by the caste into which one is born. Ambedkar publicly set fire to the Manusmriti on December 25, 1927, stating “Manusmriti institutionalises caste oppression. It justifies oppression and exploitation by a section of society against a vast majority of people. It justifies the so-called upper caste people discriminating against the vast majority of the lower caste people”.

 

There are many epochs in Indian history

The discovery of the Indus valley civilization was made by Sir John Marshall who was an English director general of the Indian Archaeological Survey. In the 1920s was responsible for the large-scale excavations that revealed Harappa and Mohenjo-daro, the two largest cities of the previously unknown Indus Valley Civilization. John Marshall famously announced the discovery of the Indus valley civilization to the world when he said, ”Not often has it been given to archaeologists, as it was given to Schliemann at Tiryns and Mycenae, or to Aurel Stein in the deserts of Turkestan, to light upon the remains of a long-forgotten civilization. It looks, however, at this moment, as if we were on the threshold of such a discovery in the plains of the Indus. Indians have always been justly proud of their age-old civilization and believing that this civilization was as ancient as any in Asia, they have long been hoping that archaeology would discover definite monumental evidence to justify their belief. This hope has now been fulfilled.”

While the Indus valley civilization was unearthed in the 1920’s, the full extent of the civilization was unknown till the 1980’s and 1990’s when major cites further east such as Rakhigarhi and Dholavira were undiscovered. It is now known to be four times the size of Egypt or Mesopotamia. Since the IVC was not widely factored into historical studies in the early twentieth centuries, it is likely that Gandhi or Ambedkar was not aware of its majesty and glory. The religious practices in the Indus Valley were quite different from those of present-day Hinduism, though it would logically emanate and follow that the latter derived from the former. The IVC’s mature phase began over two thousand five hundred years before the Manusmriti. However, the IVC is largely believed to have been relatively egalitarian, even in comparison to the civilizations further west, i.e. Mesopotamia and Egypt. In the words of Gregory Possehl, the Harappans formed a heterarchy rather that a hierarchy; consequently the standard of living is the IVC was relatively high. Harappan society transformed itself into post-Harappan society through a complex process of acculturation. We had written about this extensively in several of our previous papers.

The existence of the Mahajanapadas

Romila Thapar’s views on history are obviously obsolete. Mahajanapadas existed before the time of the Buddha, and migrations from the Indus valley to the Gangetic plains happened in 1900 BC, when people got mixed up with other cultures. According to the Buddhist text Anguttara Nikaya, the following sixteen Mahajanapadas were in existence before the time of Buddha i.e. 600 BC: Anga, Magadha, Kashi, Koshala, Vajji, Malla, Vatsa, Chedi, Kuru, Panchala, Matsya, Surasena, Ashvaka, Avanti, Gandhara and Kamboja. Another Buddhist text Digha Nikaya mentions the twelve Mahajanpadas and omits Ashvaka, Avanti, Gandhara and Khamoboja from the list. Another Buddhist text Chulla Nidesa adds two more Mahajanapadas Yona and Kalinga and drops Gandhara from the list. The Jaina classic The Bhagavati Sutra gives a slightly different list of sixteen Mahajanapadas i.e Anga, Vanga, Magadha, Malaya, Malavaka, Accha, Vaccha, Kochcha , Padha, Ladha, Bajji or Vajji, Malla, Kasi, Kosala, Avaha and Sambhuttara. This Jain work has obviously not considered the kingdoms of the far north, and has included some less important kingdoms. Therefore, Indian history is indeed based on obsolete historical models, and foreign and Indian researchers must take up work on the Gangetic plains at the soonest. At present only the Archaeological survey of India is involved in researching this period in history.

Let us now take the views of a few other scholars too: In the book ‘A History of India’, Hermann Kulke and Dietmer Rothermund state “The extension of the Vedic culture into the Central and Eastern Gangetic plains was as important for the further course of Indian history as the period of their early settlement in the Punjab and the Ganga Yamuna doab. The penetration of the east soon led to the emergence of the first historical kingdoms and to a second phase of urbanization, the first being that of the Indus civilization.” Frank Raymond Allchin and Erdosy state in their book “The Archeology of Early South Asia”, “Lal’s data show that regardless of the absence of a Central place or incipient kingdoms in the region surveyed, the number of new settlements increased and began to colonize or rather exploit areas previously ignored. During the BRW phase, a total of 17.25 hectares were occupied by settlements. During the PGW phase, this had increased to 53.58 hectares and to 140.05 in the NBPW and to 291.12 hectares in the early historic. We may convert this data into possible population densities of 200 people per hectare (Dhavalikar et all 1988). During the BRW period, settlements were occupied by some 3450 people, the PGW settlements by 10716, the NBPW period by 28010 and the early historic period by 58,430 people. It is possible to compare these results with those from Erdosy’s survey. The foregoing discussion has expressly attempted to illustrate that the stretch of c 1000 years between the two great civilizations was not the Dark ages as suggested by Wheeler (Wheeler 1959,114). We must abandon Wheeler’s vision of the period as consisting of semi-nomadic food gathering communities, capable of clearing patches of jungle and living mainly on hunting and fishing for one of large permanent settlements, some of which may be surely classified as urban.”

In the book ‘The quest for the origins of Vedic culture’, Edwin Bryant states “Shaffer (1993) refers to one set of data that undermines this simplistic portrayal of an apparent devolution and re-evolution of urbanization which has nearly become a South Asian archeological axiom. Although there appears to have been a definite shift in settlements from the Indus valley proper in late and post-Harappan periods, there is a significant increase in the number of sites in Gujarat, and an explosion (i.e a 300 percent increase) of new settlements in East Punjab to accommodate the transferral of the population. Shaffer is insistent that this shift by Harappan and perhaps by other Indus valley cultural mosaic groups is the only archeologically documented west to east migrations in ancient India before the first half of the first millennium BC. Moreover, although there is a general decrease in the size of the settlements, not all of these were small and insignificant in comparison with the large complex structures of the Mature Harappan period. Data from Bahawalpur, the region of Pakistan most thoroughly surveyed, suggests an increase in the size of the settlements of the late Harappan period in comparison to the Harappan period. (Shaffer 1993, 57). This is very significant. More surveys have revealed large post-Harappan settlements in the Indus region after the major Indus centres were abandoned. Research …....... is beginning to demonstrate that there was really no dark age isolating the proto-historic period from the historic period (Kenoyer 1987,26). As with the BMAC culture, these data also problematize the notion that the Vedas are, in fact silent regarding large settlements, it is not because of a lack of such settlements at the approximate time and place where the Vedas are assumed to have been composed, because as Shaffer has observed, settlements did not disappear, they simply moved east. This would have been caused by the hydrological, ecological, and other factors mentioned previously that had struck the sites further west. Thus there was a re-organization and expansion (Kenoyer 1995, 234) but not dissolution. “Other scholars to have worked on, or written about the Gangetic plains. However, if we do research this period in Indian history, we can push back history reliably by over a thousand years. Research on this period in history would be important for both archaeologists and anthropologists, and it would throw light on India’s social, cultural and economic history, including a history of Indian religion, and the caste problem. By most accounts, Kasi or Benares was the epicenter of the degraded Brahminical orthodoxy, though the caste system only got gradually entrenched in different parts of North India, probably and arguably at different times, and some regions would not have come under the sway of the caste system as much as others did.  It is fallacious to say that the upper castes alone would have contributed to Indian religious traditions. Lower caste traditions would have also contributed to Indian religious traditions in some way. For example, we had Yama who was the God of death. Such traditions were clearly not Brahmincal. We need a balanced, thorough, a meticulous and a systematic evaluation of Indian history, because all aspects of Indian history are tightly interrelated, and errors would have a domino effect and a cascading effect with many unforeseen consequences.

The religious practices of South India also would have contributed greatly to Indian religious traditions. North Indian culture however, began to impact South Indian cultures quite early, and from around 300 BC as well. Vedic Brahminism, Buddhism and Jainism (all three) made inroads into South India during approximately the same period. Buddha spoke out against the Vedas; there was no Hinduism way back then. Therefore, splitting up of Indian religious traditions into Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism is also somewhat superficial and shallow. At the same time, there were other distinct religious practices in Ancient India such as the religious practices of Munda tribes, religious practices of tribes in the north east, etc. Whether they had a larger than life presence and impacted and effected other religious traditions is also unknown. People may also pose the question, “Were these people Hindus?” This of course depends on how you define Hinduism. One simple acid test is this: Ask these people themselves how they would like to be defined and how they would like to be called. Let us take a majority opinion.  

Other tricks in the Hindutva armory

We reproduce this from a section in our 2013 paper “The Demise of the Dravidian, Vedic and Paramunda Indus Hypotheses: A brief explanation as to why these three Hypotheses are no longer tenable”.

1.       Shouting out against a myth, an obsolete or a half-imaginary theory i.e. The Aryan Invasion theory (which should have been abandoned before it actually was-or at least the fact that it was abandoned should have been communicated properly to all affected or concerned parties). This was the chief strategy of Hindutva revisionists in the 1990’s and the early 2000’s, and was usually a ploy to promote Hindutva theories such as the VIT. In any case, no present-day scholar anywhere in the world subscribes to the AIT anymore. Therefore, a criticism of the Aryan Invasion theory is wholly irrelevant from a Twenty-first century standpoint. As Romila Thapar points out in the article “Hindutva and history” (Frontline, Volume 17, issue 30, Sept 30-Oct 13, 2000) “Why then do Hindutva ideologues - Indian and non-Indian - keep flogging a dead horse and refuse to consider the more recent alternative theories? For them the only alternative is that if the Aryans were not invaders, they must have been indigenous. That there is a range of possibilities between the two extremes of invaders or indigenous does not interest them. The insistence on the indigenous origin of the Aryans allows them to maintain that the present-day Hindus are the 80 lineal descendants of the Aryans and the inheritors of the land since the beginning of history. This then requires that the presence of the Aryans be taken back into earliest history. Hence the attempt to prove, against the prevailing evidence from linguistics and archaeology, that the authors of the Rigveda were the people of the Indus cities or were possibly even prior to that.” As Witzel says of N S Rajaram (EJVS, Volume 7, (2001), issue 2 (March 31) “As Rajaram's star dimmed, however, renewed beating began of a much more ancient dead horse -- the Aryan Invasion Theory ("AIT") -- of which, 50 years after the theory's heyday, I am fantasized by Rajaram et al. as the archetypal Western champion.”

2.       Confusing immigration with invasion (i.e. deliberately) is another tactic of Hindutva proponents. A definition of the two terms can be found in any English dictionary. A very morbid fear of complex acculturation models – these have become extremely complex in the recent past, and can explain all aspects of Indian culture well – also characterizes Hindutva. As Witzel points out, “K (Kazanas) does not have a firm grasp on the complexity of the AIT discussion; he confuses, like Elst, invasion (intentionally) with immigration, trickling in etc.; this leaves all disturbing details by the wayside and simplifies his job enormously: always beating down the straw man, 'invasions', as in his elaborate Norman example! In fact, his summary (p. 22) § 19 reads like a farce... (Ruckspiegel, Pratibimba, Rear view mirror “The Kazanas fiasco” (7/5/2001)). Dr Robert Zydenbos, who has unequivocally stated that he does not support the idea of an invasion, only immigration, has spoken very strongly against Hindutva tactics and calls AIT-bashing “shouting out against a myth”. (He has likewise been fantasized by Hindutva proponents to be an archetypal AIT supporter, which, as stated above, he is not.) Zydenbos very categorically states “"In recent years, certain persons in India have revived a 'debate' over what is known as the Aryan Invasion Theory. Basically, this oversimplified and outdated theory says that the original speakers of Indo-European languages (Sanskrit and its derivatives), the Aryans, were invaders who overran the subcontinent, destroying older civilizations and subjugating the peoples of those earlier civilizations. Although certain elements of this old theory still hold good (such as the origin of the Indo-Aryan, i.e., Indian branch of the Indo-European language family being outside the Indian subcontinent), no up-to-date academician today takes the whole of the old theory as valid." (‘A Hindutva polemic’, by Robert Zydenbos)

3.       The general Hindutva obsession with the issue of whether the “Aryans” came from inside or outside India, to the exclusion of all other serious problems facing Indology. This is irrelevant to history because identities can keep changing from generation to generation, and as immigrants could only have been extremely small in number (it is also virtually impossible that they identified themselves as ‘Aryans’), they would have lost their identity long ago. The question of immigration or non-immigration is practically irrelevant from any standpoint, more so given that only small groups of people were involved, and should not interest anyone except a small group of specialists. Very few can even deny that people of this kind are not interested in history but in politics. The “Aryans” migrated to Iran and other parts of the world as well, but nobody creates a hue and cry there. Witzel has, time and again, pointed out that the term ‘Aryan’ only has a cultural connotation in the RV. Hindutva protagonists deliberately introduce covert shenanigans and proffer dubious arguments to mislead the laity and the gullible.

4.       Let us assume momentarily that the Aryan Invasion theory did exist in the popular public consciousness till 2005. We give them this liberty as there unquestionably has been a failure from many sides. The BJP and their cohorts have however, killed it in polemical style since; now that the RSS and their ignominious cronies have killed it off, why shout about it after they themselves have pronounced its death? Anyone who shouts out against the defunct AIT will be declared politically motivated.

5.       Hindutva proponents are, if all these arguments are taken into account, very clearly not interested in history or have no love for history for history’s sake: The history of the Gangetic plains was, and is being researched by scholars such as F.E Pargiter, Smith, Rau, Witzel and several others. Hard-core Hindutva proponents will not be interested in history because it will conflict with their ideology.

6.       We also draw our readers’ attention to the Indus script fiasco: In 2004, Steve Farmer proposed that the Indus script was not a script at all. This provoked several angry reactions from Western and Indian scholars. Scholars of many different hues and colours objected. These included several truth-seekers and lovers of science and history. Among the Indian scholars who very strongly objected were Rajesh Rao, S Kalayanaraman, Mayank Vahia, Nisha Yadav and Iravatham Mahadevan. One may like to draw to attention of Hindutvavaadins’ role in this fiasco. Hindutva proponents, (they will, of course, go deliberately unnamed) were conspicuously absent even as most Western scholars defended the Indus script theory on behalf of Indian scholars and researchers; the reason for this would be quite clear to most impartial observers: The Indus script is very clearly outside the purview of Hindutva. This speaks volumes about their patriotism and clearly exposes the shallowness of the Hindutva ideology.

7.       Equating a sub-sect of Hinduism to the whole of Hinduism and then equating Hinduism to the whole of India is an obvious tactic adopted by proponents of Hindutva ideology. The term Hinduism is itself a mirage, because it is recent in origin, and the obvious objective of all Hindutva strategies is to demonize Christians and Muslims. It would be obvious to most that Hindutva is nothing but crass and degenerate Brahminism of the worst kind. While few will deny that Brahminism has contributed in a major way to what is what is today known as Hinduism, and Sanskrit has played a major role in the cultural and linguistic unification of India in a manner no other language could have, given the fact that it was primarily a lingua franca of the elite in post-Harappan India, Hinduism does not comprise of Brahminism alone. This would be very greatly undermining the diversity of Indic religious traditions. Proponents of extreme versions of Hindutva will also never talk about Sanathana Dharma. The reasons for this are not too far to seek: Hindutva has nothing whatsoever to do with the capaciousness of Sanathana Dharma or the tolerance or the innate respect for diversity enshrined therein.

8.       When it was proposed that the IVC could not have been Vedic, Hindutvaadins began introducing a crude “is “mine” older” or “is “theirs” older” competition .i.e. Vedic civilization is pre-IVC theory. This type of an approach does not qualify as a science at all; Hindutva relies on history to promote its political ideology. No more, no less.

9.       Using the services of foreigners who probably cannot understand the complexity of Indian culture to promote Hindutva. Employing the services of foreign scholars has been a key component of the Hindutva approach.

10.   Using the perceived weaknesses and irrationality of Marxist historiography as an excuse for promoting the Hinduvta movement. Readers are welcome to read the writings of Marxist Historians such as D.N Jha, for example, and assess for themselves whether they are unbiased or not. Remember the golden rule, “One kind of bias provides a justification for every other kind of bias” (scholars of this type are as guilty as Hindutva proponents themselves because such scholarship throws up counter-reactions and only leads to a polarization of views). If the menace of Hindutva is to be contained, balanced scholarship is the only way. The only difference between these groups of people is that the former is driven entirely by the desire to boost sectarian pride, the latter by dogma. The day may even come when people of this type are declared to be as guilty and as inimical to national interest as Hindutva proponents themselves. However, Hindutva proponents use such ideology-driven approaches as a pretext to promote their own theories. Using Dravidian nationalism as an excuse to promote Hindutva is another Hindutva technique, and Dravidian nationalism will almost certainly perpetuate the Hindutva menace, and therefore, a change in attitude from all sides is warranted. A desire to boost sectarian pride will never get people very far; it breeds counter-reactions always. Dravidian Harappa proponents must always be willing to take contradictory evidence into account, and must present their ideas only if they are convinced that they are correct. Sentimental approaches make people nutty. Of what use is a proposal if it does not stand the test of time or if the targeted audience makes a mockery of it? Using Euro centrism as an excuse to promote Hindutva is also a well-known Hindutva strategy. Read posts in ‘Indo[1]Eurasian research list’ for example, and the day may even come when people of this type are declared to be as guilty and as inimical to science as Hindutva proponents themselves. Many scholars, both Western and Indian, have been critical of this type of an approach. Farmer’s approach has been undermine the hard-work put in by scores of American, European and Indian scholars in uncovering India’s past. While no scholar, Western or Indian will oppose a quest for the truth, few would deny that Farmer’s approach is loaded with bias and prejudice, and this fact was tacitly acknowledged by Farmer himself in a post in the ‘Indo-Eurasian research list’. (We say this not because of any antipathy but to drive home a point. We say this in the interests of science and scholarship.) This approach is dangerous for many reasons (a) it sets a bad precedent not only for Indology but for other sciences as well. (b) it undermines the hard work put in by American, European and Indian researchers, makes a mockery of objective scholarship, and results in a loss of confidence in mainstream scholarship, 86 particularly Western scholarship in Indology, which at the time of writing this article, may already be in very steep decline. This is unfortunate, because most moderate Indians insist on an East-west collaboration in Indology as well as a major role to be played by the west as this would be crucial to the containment of religious fanaticism and other kinds of ideology-driven approaches. People of this type are therefore, typically not India’s problem. They are America’s problem, and a problem of the West, because they give American and Western science a bad name, and this is distressing, more so because the West has much to benefit from it financially and intellectually. While Steve Farmer may be no friend of India, it is clear that is no friend of science and objectivity either, and while we acknowledge their contributions in tackling the Hindutva menace, they owe their existence almost entirely to Marxist dogma in India and well-entrenched cabals that would like the Nineteenth century school of Indology to continue in some form or the other. (c) such approaches automatically lead to a polarization of views and as long as such approaches continue, Hindutva will almost certainly exist. Farmer’s approach has also been to “corrupt” scholars of the caliber of Witzel and Dr Richard Sproat, whether they may be individually guilty or not, and it is most sad that this has been allowed to happen, to the detriment of science. His approach has also always been to drag Indology backwards, in the direction of the Nineteenth century, parading it as objectivity. One may read the so-called Indo-Eurasian research list if he likes. We say this not because we have any hatred against him at a personal level. We say this because it stymies progress in many areas and produces counter-reactions. All this is ephemeral and transient; 87 such digressions cannot last long and will ultimately be left by the wayside. Many new epigraphic and archeological discoveries are being made constantly in the subcontinent. The IER, with its apparent bias and racism is not a place where new discoveries are analyzed and discussed, although Witzel may, individually, not be entirely guilty, as Steve Farmer may have been largely responsible for his degradation over the past few years, and at times have made an earnest attempt to bring order into to the mayhem, at other times being swayed by his assistant. If, on the other hand, they are willing to change, and turn over a new leaf, everyone must welcome it. This approach is like Katherine Mayo’s in her much-maligned 1927 book ‘Mother India’ i.e. to take anything that may be of some pride to locals and negate it, to give Western culture an upper hand. Can this kind of an approach survive in the longer run? We leave it to the lay-man to decide. The plight of colonialism is well-known. One of her fixations was Indian cultures’ imagined cruelty towards animals. Is this true, in comparison to other cultures given that many Indian sects abhor cruelty towards animals in any form? Given that Western universities depend on Indian students, India-bashing of this kind, in the guise of scholarship is not a bad business strategy, it is anachronism. Archaic Western scholarship had for long depended on Marxist dogma to propagate imperialism. All this will change in the next decade as both get consigned to the rubbish-heap of history. On the other hand, what contribution did Hindutva proponents make in exposing this bias? Absolutely nothing, in the view of most. This may be because they are not interested in anything that is outside the purview of AIT-bashing! This is by now a hackneyed, and a stale old trick, and would now even appear ludicrous to most. What other tricks do Hindutvavaadins have in their stable? Their approaches clearly reflect their narrow and parochial mindset. Hindutva will not survive if like-minded individuals create and awareness among the larger sections of the public. On the other hand the fact the viable alternatives do not exist means that Hindutva is a ticking time-bomb. Hindutvavaadins, sensing mainstream scholarships imminent demise, are waiting on the wings to take over.

11.   Using the fact that current approaches to Indology are considered to be hopelessly obsolete to their full advantage instead of opting for via media solutions. There can be no smoke without fire; Hindutva proponents managed to wrest control of institutions such as the Indian Council of Historical research because there is a failure from all sides. Older Indologists must understand the limitations and drawbacks of obsolete models and Marxist historians must similarly understand that they must take a major portion of the blame. Marxists historians have argued that all schools of historiography have been encouraged. This is wrong, because dogmatic scholarship such as those always attributed to Marxist historians throw up counter-reactions. Marxists themselves are legitimizing Hindutva. As long as dogmatic Marxist historiography exists, Hindutva will continue to exist. We will even argue that dogmatic Marxist historiography is one of the pillars of Hindutva. The approach must be to marginalize Hindutva, not to give it a reason to exist. Only people who are free from ideology or dogma will have the moral and ethical right to speak out against Hindutva. Only the abandonment of their ideology will give them enormous power and the ethical and moral right to criticize other ideologies as well. While 89 there may be no consensus on most or many issues even among the so-called Marxist intelligentsia, the fact that there is a clear and an illogical and an irrational bias among some sections of the left is visible and apparent to most logical thinkers. This, of course may be a purely ideology-driven one, and not necessarily one driven by an intention to deceive. When a Warangal-based student painted Hindu deities in the nude, he was supported, as it was artistic freedom. The same was the case with M F Hussein. When the Dutch cartoon controversy erupted, the response was tragically and quite drastically different. We only demand that all sections of the intelligentsia take a common stance regardless of religion. A section of the left intelligentsia categorically stated that they would not condone fanaticism of any kind, irrespective of whether it was Hindu or Islamic. This kind of a pronouncement is always welcome, but must be followed up with action consistently. A change is nonetheless perceptible, and this will serve to bring people on all sides of the table together one day, regardless of ideology. The Marxist magazine ‘Frontline’ criticized the Varanasi bomb blasts, and rightfully so. Even former hardliners like Prakash Karat have apparently learnt to change with the times. This kind of a change in approach is welcome, and would actually be beneficial to the interests of scholarship. This cannot however be said of all sections of the left, and one may do his or her own homework to assesses whether this statement is substantiated. We will differentiate between the left, the far left (the differences being the degree of ideology), and what we may call the disoriented and antediluvian far left, which is essentially driven by dogma. At least the third category has to change, and the author is of the firm conviction that 90 this can eventually happen. If this does, Hindutva will be marginalized. We will always say, ‘one kind of a bias legitimizes every other kind of bias.’ We will also be looking forward to a quantification of bias and prejudice of all kinds, and this is an exercise interested scholars must undertake. This can be done only by proving Hindutva and Marxist dogma empirically, analyzing Hindutva and Marxist writers and their works thoroughly, that we can lay the foundations for a more objective school of Indology. We will look forward to such works from scholars in the near future. Remember the golden rule: Absence of a male fide intention can be no excuse. The road to hell can be paved with the best of intentions. If dogmatic Marxist historians still wish to persist, others must declare them to be anti-science and anti-national just as Hindutva is declared anti-science and anti-national. Mainstream Western and Indian scholars are equally guilty because they persist with outdated paradigms. Marxist scholars have clearly made no effort whatsoever to expose Farmer’s bias in the IER even though it is as damaging to science as Hinduva misuse of history. Clearly, dogmatic Marxist historiography of the kind practiced in India is biased, one-sided and irrational, and due to this, we declare them anti-national in some respects, even though they may have no mala fide intentions per se. The fact that their approach is one-sided has been pointed out by many other scholars and we are certainly not the first to have done so. In many cases, they may be working against national interest, and in what cases they are working against national interest, they themselves may have no control, given that they may be entirely driven by dogma, unlike that approach that should be ideally adopted by logical-thinking individuals. As has 91 been pointed out Marxist historiography has become synonymous with obsolescence and senility, and this kind of an approach cannot even continue beyond one or two generations, and will lead to depleted intellectual faculties, illogical and irrational behavior, loss of personal respect and dignity, lowered level of professional competence, and such individuals may frequently act against national interest and interests of science and will inflict, like Hindutva, damage on the education system as well. We will persist with this categorization, however provocative it may seem, till they change, or can at least provide a convincing refutation backed by data. We can still find Western and Indian scholars talking about the terms ‘Aryan’ and ‘Dravidian’ in a racial context, and arguing facetiously for second millennium BC migrations, for example. All this needs to change, as they can be pronounced guilty for encouraging Hindutva. Modernization of Indology is the only surefire method to nip Hindutva in the bud before it evolves into a Frankenstein monster of uncontrollable proportions and devours objective scholarship completely in the next couple of years. Those who do not want such a thing to happen must forge a consensus to found a new school of Indology. This must happen as soon as possible because we are leaving too many things open to risk, and the loss of objectivity in scholarship will be to the major detriment of the west. Marxist intellectuals rightly criticized Hindutva and their endeavours that culminated in the containment of Hindutva must be highly appreciated. However, by persisting with outdated paradigms, Marxist intellectuals are actually encouraging imperialism and racism. Marxist historiography is one-sided, and India is none the better for it. Hindutva misuse 92 of history may be a reaction to Marxist historiography. Needless to say, Hindutva proponents have a vested interest in promoting their own ideology, not just criticizing Marxist historiography because it may be biased, and the result of one kind of bias is that it produces an unequal counter-reaction, the end-result being far worse than the relatively innocuous Marxist dogma that may have produced it in the first place. Both ideologies i.e. the Marxist-imperialist nexus and Hindutva may have actually depended on each other for survival, even to some extent providing a stimulus and a raison d’etre for both. One ideology cannot be a substitute for another. The best antidote for Hindutva fascism is objective scholarship, not any other form of ideology; the latter will be clearly exacerbating it more in the longer run. All students who wish to join Indology courses in mainstream institutions must become a harbinger of change by insisting that obsolete paradigms be abandoned forthwith. The nineteenth century school of Indology will have a vested interest in prolonging its existence, and those who subscribe to it may have an emotional attachment to it that is not in the long-term interests of scholarship. Scholarship is global, not local. By resorting to tactics such as these, Western scholarship will not only be digging its own grave (this will be sad as it has contributed so much and the rest of the world has still so much to benefit from Western scholarship) but will also be producing counter[1]reactions that will undermine its own well-being.

12.   Taking full advantage of the fact that the man in the street cannot understand or will not be interested in understanding the complexity of the Aryan problem, given that this is a topic dealt with in the ordinary course of 93 events, only by a small group of specialists, and using his historical naivety in this respect to their advantage. Hindutva strategies are extremely complex, albeit somewhat stale now, and those who understand them must expose them in the interests of the greater good of society. It is of paramount importance that the masses, or at least a sliver of intellectuals be educated on Hindutva strategies, and modern paradigms and alternative approaches must be similarly widely disseminated to the masses and it will help contain the menace of Hindutva.

The IVC was not Vedic

The Indus Valley Civilization is also not Vedic, it was pre-Vedic. For example, the Vedic  homeland was in the Punjab. The IVC was towards the west of the Aryavarta. Sanskrit was a a liturgical language not a language of the masses. Sites cannot be dated through potsherds, if we study the IVC carefully, we will note that it originated from Mehrgarh in the Baluchistan. The presence of horse bones shows how a cultural mix up happened, it does not prove that all ten million of ancient Indians owned horses or were riding on horses. The sites of the IVC do not match with the Mahajanapadas. Sanskrit literature is silent about the Indus sites. The Harappan sites are not on the Ganga Yamuna doab, or at least the epicenter was not on the Ganga Yamuna doab. The IVC declined in 1900 BC, and disappeared off the face of the earth by 1400 BC to 1300 BC, while Vedic culture was continuous till Buddhist times. We had written extensively on the identity of the Harappans. Please read our previous papers. Hindutva groups are also fixated on the Aryan problem, and want to “prove” by hook or by crook that the “Aryans” were indigenous to India, or originated from India.   The IVC would have also contributed greatly to Indian religious traditions, even if the term Hindu was not used at that time. No  one should deny this. Hindutva groups also want to whitewash the caste system. Apparently, this is some kind of neo-Brahminism. This is like a kink in a dog’s tail. This is like a stuck up gramophone record. The Late NS Rajaram was said to have been a martyr to the Hindutva cause, but he was perhaps really a martyr to the cause of Brahminism. We may call this tendency neo-Brahminism. The Author has had a large number of Brahmin friends since childhood, and counted on them as his best friends. No one has anything against Brahmins as individuals. There will be both good people and bad people among Brahmins, just as there are among other groups. However, we must fight perverse misuse of history of this kind. This is not good for the nation. This is not good for science.  Hinduism is indeed a very diverse religion. Let us keep it that way.