Left, Right Rewrite

To the left, the theory of Aryan migration from Central Asia is more or less sacrosanct. To the right, it is open to question. How do the new textbooks tackle this? On page 71 of R.S. Sharma’s Ancient India (class XI), the author puts down the evidence:

The Indo-Aryans migrated from Central Asia to India. This can be said on the basis of genetic evidence. Search is made for genetic characteristics in the blood cells of humans and other beings. These traits are known as DNA. They are hereditary and pass from generation to generation. Biologists have noticed the type of genetic traits in the steppe people of Central Asia from its one end to the other. These genetic indications are called M 17 and they appear around 8,000 BC. These are found in more than 40 per cent people in Central Asia. When the scientists looked for them in Delhi, they discovered these traits in more than 35 per cent of the Hindi speakers and only in 10 per cent of the speakers of Dravidian. Thus biologists conclude that the Indo-Aryans migrated from Central Asia to India.

Put mildly, the preceding paragraph is neither an advertisement for good historiography nor for ‘‘scientific history’’. The unidentified survey in Delhi of speakers of a language called ‘‘Dravidian’’ does not meet usually accepted benchmarks for rigorous evidence. ‘‘The issue here is not the veracity of the Aryan invasion theory,’’ says one academic, ‘‘but how it is presented.’’

Another big battle has centred on whether ancient Hindus ate beef. Circumlocutory Sharma alludes to it: ‘‘Possibly, the dasyus in the Rig Vedarepresent the original inhabitants of the country, and an Aryan chief who overpowered them was called Trasadasyu. The Aryan chief was soft towards the dasas, but strongly hostile to the dasyus. The term dasyuhatya, slaughter of dasy is repeatedly mentioned in the Rig Veda. The dasyu possibly worshipped the phallus and did not keep cattle for dairy products.’’

SATISH Chandra’s Medieval India became controversial when saffron groups protested against its reference to Prithviraj Chauhan and the Second Battle of Tarain: ‘‘Prithviraja escaped, but was captured … was allowed to rule over Ajmer for some time … Soon after, Prithviraja was executed on a charge of conspiracy.’’ Popular belief has it that Prithviraj was killed after the battle or was taken to Kabul by Muhammad Ghori and killed there (after himself killing Ghori, according to his court balladeer Chand Bardai).

Which version is true? Says Meenakshi Jain, whose own Medieval India has just been replaced by Chandra’s book, ‘‘Frankly, we don’t know. But is it correct to present just one version, disregarding all others?’’

In the 17th century, Guru Tegh Bahadur was executed by Aurangzeb. It is believed he died seeking justice for Kashmiri Pundits. Sharma has a contrarion view: ‘‘There is also the tradition that the Guru was punished because he had raised a protest against the religious persecution of the Hindus in Kashmir by the local governors. The persecution of Hindus is not mentioned in any of the histories of Kashmir, including the one written by Narayan Kaul in 1710. Saif Khan, the Mughal governor of Kashmir at the time, is famous as a builder of bridges. He was a humane and broadminded person … His successor after 1671,, Iftekhar Khan, was anti-Shia but there are no references to his persecuting the Hindus.’’

Says Jain, ‘‘He has referred to only some Persian sources, but ignored Vichitra Natak, the contemporary record of the Guru’s son, Guru Gobind Singh.’’

She also says Sharma’s book ignores ‘‘the 600 years between Harsha’s death in 646 and the establishment of the Sultanate … This was a period when non-elite groups like the Chandelas (Gond tribals) founded dynasties. It doesn’t fit into their stereotype of hidebound caste society.’’

THE class VIII textbook by the couple Arjun Dev and Indira Arjun Dev, Modern India, has been accused of Marxist overinterpretation. It ascribes widespread support in Britain to the Indian cause in 1857:

In Britain itself, the common people, including industrial workers who had emerged as a new social class, had organised themselves and were demanding equal political rights for all citizens and abolition of inequalities in society. Many of their leaders, it would interest you to know, supported the aims of the revolt in India and condemned the atrocities committed by the British troops on the Indian people. It was their view that the British domination of India benefited only the small upper sections of British society against whom the common people of Britain were themselves struggling.

In a sense, 1857 was a precursor to the Spanish Civil War, indicating an incipient internationalist proletarian solidarity. It’s a fine theory. Is it also history?