Romila Thapar, Karunanidhi and Indian Historiography

By  K. V. Ramakrishna Rao (Historian)

An unprecedented trend has taken place in Indian historiography when Romila Thapar has come out with an opinion in “The Hindu” under the caption, “Where fusion cannot work – faith and history” (the Hindu, dated September 28, 2007). Ironically, there have been dubious connections among the three. And if the “The Hindu” is included, the combination becomes four. Yes, Romila Thapar has been the favorite historian of “The Hindu”. Karunanidhi used to call this pet-paper as “Mount Road Maha Vishnu“. Of course, just like Romila, Karunanidhi too have connection with “The Hindu”. His daughter, Kanimozhi worked in editorial Board. His Trade Union has been strong in “The Hindu” and the Trade Union leader N. P.  “Ramajayam” has now become a Minister. And above all, Karunanidhi has a Brahmin girl as in-law from Ram’s family! All the four have connection with Ram in one way or the other!

 

She starts with the concepts of “faith” and “history”. History is not what has been written or being written, but it is exactly what had happened the past. “What has been written” varies with “what is being written” not only by the same historian but also by others at time and space. For example, Romila’s stand on AIT. About what exactly had happened, the present historians may not know 100%. According to the percentage of “knowing the past” or “known past”, they start writing history or histories. If we analyze carefully a book written by historian, he / she would have contradicted himself / herself many times. Particularly, the historians with ideology err many times because of their in-built bias, prejudice and pre-conditioned mind-set.

 

So what is such attitude? It is nothing but the thinking processes of such historian focusing his / her views to a particular estimation making it a belief and turning into a judgment. So what is the “faith” of historians in their historical methodology?

The process of historical examination or analysis is an important task  involving investigation and study of competing ideas, challenging facts and purported facts to create coherent narratives, descriptions and even stories that explain from a level of “what, why or how happened”, to “What, why or how it could have happened”. Here, they should be free from bias and prejudice.

Many times, modern historians talk like linguist, anthropologist, economist, sociologist, philosopher, politician, and so on with less historical outlook. They heavily depend upon the “evolutionary theory” to explain every possible human activity that could have taken place on the earth. Ironically, they criticize science depending upon science. If we analyze the principles of historiography, the historical epistemology, historiosophy, etc., a honest historian and historiographer knows very well how much faith and belief he / she is having in his methodology and translating, transforming and trying to conclude something ultimately putting forward as a hypothesis, theory and law. However, we know historians have been so anxious many times making theory, before their hypothesis is matured, accepted or approved enough to become a theory.

Modern historians accuse the historians of the past as they were generally ordered by the rulers to record their lineage tracing back to certain Kings, who happened to be mythical, as they were going beyond the historic periods. Moreover, the narrations would be always mixed with oratory, poetry and literature in a way which is incompatible with the contemporary concern for impartiality and objectivity. However, even the modern historians accept that they need not be “objective”, so they to succumb to such weaknesses, of course, without such oratory, poetry and literature, but with verbose of ideology, wordy interpretation, loquacious conclusions and forceful imposition. So in the attempt of approaching “actual history”, attaining at least “factual history”, “forceful history” is embraced bringing out “faithful history” on readers and academia “forced history”. So, where “faith” and “history” are separated? Where fusion is denied to have fission? Can it be fit into the post-liberal, post-western, post-Marxist or any other context?

History is not mathematics to say exactly “two plus two equal to four” or test Rama, Mahavir, Buddha, Jesus Christ or Mohammed in laboratory in time and space to come to a conclusion without variance. When historians cannot be objective in their methodology without any variance or difference, why they worry about comparing incomparable?

If the birth place of the mentioned, who exactly acted as “mid-wives” (as one asked in the case of Rama during RJB issue) their fathers, mothers (with birth certificates and dates of birt), where they studied, schools-colleges, their admission documents (as Karunanidhi asked about the engineering skill of Rama),  their place of death of the mentioned (with death certificates) cannot be determined by C-14, TL or any other method, then, historians should not interpret that one is historical and another is mythical. After all, a biography of a person existed or non-existed requires a father and mother and they must have existed in tIme and place. And all must have lived, eaten, danced, carried on daily routines, grown, married, begot children, had lineage and died. Can documents be produced at every stage or level? Can historians produce such details in biographies? First of all, are there any such biographies with or without variance as claimed?

I do not want to go into the details of integrity, honesty and professional ethics of historians, archaeologists, numismatists etc., as there are culprits, black-sheep and even criminals. Of course, there is good number of highly principled, ethical and straight-forward ones. But, It is not good for any historian to tell lies. Unfortunately, Romila Thapar with all her scholarship and stature has come to side with politicians. As I have been regularly watching the political events connected with Rama-sethu and reading vernaculars and of course listening to Karunanidhi in person recently several times in the context, I could feel that Romila Tapar has written in “The Hindu”, just by translating political ideas of Karunanidhi in Tamil to English with some historical patch up! In fact, I was surprised some views have been exactly as that of Karunanidhi!

 

Particularly, the one para is atrocious and it fully exposes the mind-set of Romila. “This does not happen with the biographies of those who were known to be historical figures and who founded belief systems: the Buddha, Jesus Christ, Mohammad. Their biographies adhere largely to a single story-line and this helps to endorse the `official’ narrative of their life. Their existence is recorded in other sources as well that are not just narratives of their lives but have diverse associations. The historicity of the Buddha, for example, is established, among other things, by the fact that a couple of centuries after he died, the emperor Ashoka on a visit to Lumbini had a pillar erected to commemorate the Buddha’s place of birth. This is recorded in an inscription on the pillar“.

 

How can a responsible historian lie like this? It is not one lie but bundle of lies put in camouflaged falsity. 

 

1. Historians know about the historicity of all the mentioned. I do not want to mention all details. Anyway, she has deliberately suppressed the historical facts to fool the Indians. It is unbecoming for her and none can forget this.

 

2. C. F. C. Volney, C. F. Dupius, Bruno Bauer, J. M. Robertson, Thomas Whittaker, W. B. Smith, Couchoud, L. Gordon Rylands Edouard Dujardin,  and host of others have dealt with “Jesus myth theory”.

 

3. Many C-14 and other tests proved that most of the Christian relics were manufactured during 13^th-24^th centuries.

 

4. Ibn Warraq and others have dealt with the related issues of Islam.

 

5. About relics manufacture for Buddhism, the case of Alois Anton Fuhrer has been very famous. Incidentally, he was associated with Epigraphica Indica, ASI north-west frontier etc. Ironically, he forged the Lumpini casket with relics and was removed from the service. His associate Buhler disappeared without trace! About stealing of Buddha relics from Bihar and their appearance in Sri Lanka, the role of ASI, a disappearance Buddha statue from Madras Museum etc., tell the stories of fraudulent activities connected.

 

6. “This does not happen with the biographies of those who were known to be historical figures and who founded belief systems: the Buddha, Jesus Christ, Mohammad. Their biographies adhere largely to a single story-line and this helps to endorse the `official’ narrative of their life. Anyway, if Romila has been generous enough to give such biographies, all believers would be so happy.

 

7. I know what Suvira Jaiwal spoke at Calicut: “Rama cult arose in the South, says historian” (March  12, 2007 The Hindu) The “Special correspondent” of “The Hindu” made others to believe by his biased reporting. First of, it was shame on the organizers to politicize the IHC and postpone the conference by shifting the venue from Kurukshetra to Calicut by making thousands of delegates to loose lakhs of rupees and waste their valuable time. Of course changing of venue and postponing conference has been plaguing IHC, ever since one coterie of IHC has started resorting to politicize and communalize it (earlier glaring instances Ujjaini, Warangal, New Delhi, Calcutta etc). She argued that Rama cult arose in the South, the “Dravida” country and later got assimilated into religious psyche of the North! How then, you write differently about the location of Lanka etc.

 

8. If Suvira has to be “believed” historically, Ayodhya has to be located in the South and perhaps, Lanka in the North! Anyway, that too suits Romila, as it could be placed some where in the Central India! Any way, Karunanidhi has just nationalized the “Ravanakavyam”! The poor poet “Kualndai” believed that Lanka was here, exactly, where now all fight in the name of Rama! But, it has to be located in Afganisthan or Ayodhya has to come to the South, Kanunanidhi has to “internationalize” the “Ravananakavyam”. Definitely he would be more happy. As he has just given 3.5% reservation to Muslims, he would give some percentage to Talibans also!

 

9. As discussed none can bring any documents proving the birth and death of the mentioned giving dates in certificates or produce degree or diploma certificates to prove their engineering, medical or miracle skills.

 

10. If Rama could not have built a bridge without engineering college degree, Mohammed could not have flown to heavens on a horse, Jesus could not have born and resurrected etc. (I do not want to elaborate, as all are sensitive issues).

 

As a life member of Indian History Congress (IHC) since 1987, I have observed, listened to and questioned Romila Thapar, many times. Of course, not only Romila Thapar, even other eminent historians always used to avoid answering and went away hurriedly giving some excuse! But, I could find the cast difference between them as I perceived by reading their books and what they talk in the forums. And when they come to “The Hindu”, they used to change completely, as if they become “politicians”. I have noted R. S. Sharma, Ifran Habib, Barun De, M. G. S. Narayanan, K. M. Srimali, Chempakalakshmi, T. K. Venkatasubramaniam, K. N. Panikkar and others inside and outside IHC.

 

Really, as we have now on the globalization process, our historians too have had enough expertise to lie and become “history’s greatest liars”! Better, historians stick to their work instead of becoming Marxist, Dravidologist, etc., depending upon the power-brokers at the centre. Karunanidhi may invite Romila Thapar to inaugurate next World Tamil Conference!

 

Responses