We have been reviewing textbooks that have beenpublished by the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) for the past few months, and itis quite likely that we have reached a saturation point as far as interest in the issue is concerned.Yet, given the gravity of the situation, it is perhaps necessary to continue with the exercise, in order todraw attention to the serious problems that will arise if these books are recommended and used in schools. Itis in this context that we need to scrutinise the Class XI book on ancient India authored by Makkhan Lal.
We need to remember that these are books that will be used by students who consciously opt to study Historyat the Senior Secondary School level, some of whom will perhaps go on to study History in college andsubsequently as well. It is these young men and women who will become History teachers in the next generation.Also, given past experience, one knows that NCERT books have often been used by students preparing for variouscompetitive examinations. As such, what goes into them has widespread implications that cannot be overlooked.
Advertisement
Some statements in the book are confusing, to say the least. I will cite just two instances. One, from page11, informs us: "they [the British] were worried of the fact that British civilians were gettingbrahmanised and developing inferiority complex" (p 11). Elsewhere (p 32) we learn that "India is a countrywith vast variety of rich vegetation and congenial regular weather chain. It is most suited for human habitat.Conditions for population saturation resulting in mass human migrations are more probable here than inany other part of the world like central Asia or Europe." It is perhaps our loss that we are unable tomake sense of such ideas.
Advertisement
Perhaps more worrisome are the inaccurate statements that have slipped into the book at a number of points.Once again, a handful of glaring examples must suffice. We learn on page 86 that "RigVedic society comprisedfour varnas, namely, Brahmana, Kshatriya, Vaisya and Sudra." As I have pointed out elsewhere (‘Where Do WeGo From Here?’ in Saffronised and Substandard: A Critique of the New NCERT Textbooks, SAHMAT, NewDelhi, 2002, pp 25-38), there is only one reference to the fourfold varna order in the Rig Veda, in oneverse out of more than 10,000, and to use this to suggest that society represented in the text was stratifiedalong varna lines is simply inaccurate. It is not justified by any logic of historical reconstruction, butthen perhaps we are naïve to expect such logic to operate. What we are up against is the logic of attributingas much antiquity and sanctity as possible to any institution that is regarded as valuable from a narrow,majoritarian, homogenising perspective. So the varna order has to be classified as early Vedic, even if theevidence cannot sustain such a claim.
The second statement, on the same page, flows from similar concerns. "The Vedas prescribe a penalty ofdeath or expulsion from the kingdom to those who kill or injure cows." Once again, this is inaccurate,simply because the Vedas consist of mantras or prayers to the gods/goddesses. They are not normative texts,and do not prescribe punishments. But then, in the introduction to one of the most popular works on Vedicmathematics, we are told:
It is the whole essence of his [Jagadguru Shankaracharya ofPuri who "discovered" Vedic mathematics] assessment of Vedic tradition that it is not to be approachedfrom a factual standpoint but from the ideal standpoint, viz, as the Vedas, as traditionally accepted in Indiaas the repository of all knowledge, should be and not what they are in human possession. That approachentirely turns the tables on all critics, for the authorship of Vedic mathematics then need not be laboriouslysearched in the texts preserved from antiquity. [italics in the original, General Editor’s Note, p vi, toVedic Mathematics by Jagadguru Swami Sri Bharati Krsna Tirthaji Maharaja Sankaracarya of Govardhana Matha Puri,Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi].
Advertisement
We also learn (pp xxix-xxx):
Revered Guruji used to say that he had reconstructed thesixteen mathematical formulae (given in this text) from the Atharvaveda after assiduous research and‘Tapas’ for about eight years in the forests surrounding Sringeri. Obviously these formulae are not to befound in the present recensions of Atharvaveda; they were actually reconstructed, on the basis of intuitiverevelation, from materials scattered here and there in the Atharvaveda. …In 1957, when he had decidedfinally to undertake a tour of the USA he re-wrote from memory the present volume, giving an introductoryaccount of the sixteen formulae reconstructed by him.
Advertisement
As such, we should not be surprised that the term Veda can be used to mean just about anything. Suchattempts to redefine ‘Vedic’ could have been dismissed as harmless eccentricities in most situations. But,as we have seen in Jhajjar, people can lose their lives if they are thought to have been guilty of killingcows, and it is in that context that we need to ensure that such statements do not go unchallenged.
It is perhaps worth recalling what H D Sankalia, recognised for long as the father of Indian archaeology,said with respect to the cow:
The ban on cow slaughter is indeed of comparatively recentgrowth, mostly as a reaction against Islam rather than genuine, real love and reverence for the cow. ...Fromsome 3000BC to C700 BC, man in India, as elsewhere in the world, continued to prefer beef to all other formsof animal diet...What the cow/ox in India needs today is good treatment – wholesome food, and fodder andwater, and freedom from exploitation by the Hindus at all levels. Their reverence for the cow is alwayssuperficial. This was noticed and recorded by the authors of the Bhagavata Purana and the Ramayanacenturies ago and regarded as one of the symptoms of the Kali Yuga! The Kali Yuga has increasedin its intensity and so also the exploitation of the cow. It is against this exploitation that we must allstrive, not for a blanket prohibition of go-vadha. (‘The Cow in History’, Seminar, 1968.)
Advertisement
What is alarming is the scant regard for truth that has accompanied the rewriting of history in the name ofupdating antiquated scholarship.
Another instance of tampering with evidence occurs on page 90. Here we learn that "Indra is known asPurandara, ‘Lord of Cities’". This is a shocking travesty of Vedic Sanskrit. It is true that there areseveral references to Indra, one of the most important gods of the Vedic pantheon, as Purandara in the RigVeda. But the term purandara means destroyer of pura, and not lord of cities. Pura itself might mean asettlement, perhaps fortified, and not necessarily a city. The only way in which one can arrive at the senseof lord of cities is by replacing d by dh, and creating a term purandhara that does not occur in the Rig Vedicmantras. But clearly, the devotees of Indra will stop at nothing to achieve their ends. And why must Indrabecome the lord of cities? Well, the Harappan civilisation is by any standards urban, and if it has to beclaimed as Vedic, then Indra, as one of the chief gods of the Vedic pantheon, and as a warlike, valorous herofigure, has to be urbanised. What better than a simple sleight of tongue, replacing one consonant by another?So, while on the one hand lip-service continues to be paid to the sanctity of the Vedas, on the other hand,Vedic mantras and words can be transformed to suit present-day agendas.
Advertisement
Consider certain other problems with the book. Let us look at the definition of the Dharmasutras (p18).
The Dharmasutras and the Smritis are rulesand regulations for the general public and the rulers. It can be termed in the modern concept as theconstitution and the law books for the ancient Indian polity and society.
Such parallels between modern and ancient institutions and practices were frequently drawn by nationalisthistorians in the early twentieth century, when there was a preoccupation with trying to find parallels formodern institutions in the past. However, in the twentyfirst century, and after more than 50 years ofindependence, we should be able to move beyond such strategies, which were not necessarily accurate, andacknowledge historical change instead of constructing a picture of a changeless past by all means, fairand foul. Notice also that equating the Constitution with the Dharmasutras obscures and denies thevery different histories that have gone into the production of these documents. The Constitution emergedthrough a process of intense discussion and debate, which is part of our democratic heritage. The Dharmasutrasand Smritis, on the other hand, are primarily brahmanical documents and need to be understood as such.
Advertisement
A related problem is the way in which this perspective leads to constructing a picture of uniformity, onethat runs counter to the rich diversity of developments in ancient India that have been documented over thelast few decades. We read, for instance, on page 35
Although there always had been many states in India buttheir social and cultural setup had been broadly the same throughout. Sanskrit was the most respected languagebesides the local languages. States were administered and governed on the basis of law-books calledDharmasastras. Places of worship and pilgrimage are distributed throughout the country. These cultural bondsgave the Indians a sense of unity and nationality.
Advertisement
It is worth examining the implications of this statement, which in fact constitutes one of the runningthemes of the book. The only diversity that is acknowledged is that of different political powers. Socialchange is brushed aside and the fact that we have histories of the spread, modification and change in thevarna/jati system would be impossible to accommodate within this framework. Linguistic diversity is likewisesuppressed. Students would not be allowed to examine the implications of the fact that the earliestinscriptions (including those of the Mauryan ruler Asoka) are primarily in Prakrit, and not in Sanskrit andthat the Dharmasastras may have had little or no significance for the Mauryan administration (and those ofmany other polities) for instance. The fact that the institution of pilgrimage has a history of its own wouldnot be focused on and the fact that nationality is a modern notion would be lost on students who would betaught that it existed from time immemorial. And what about pedagogical strategies? Sadly, the book abounds instatements that are simple assertions, designed to encourage rote learning. Read the following paragraph, (p84) which is inserted to suggest that the Vedas are of great antiquity:
Advertisement
Bal Gangadhar Tilak, on astronomical grounds, dated RigVeda to 6000 BC. According to Harmon Jacobi Vedic civilisation flourished between 4500 BC and 2500 BC andsome of the Samhitas were composed in the latter half of the period. Famous Sanskritist, Winternitzfelt that the Rig Veda was probably composed in the third millennium BC. R K Mookerjee opined that"on a modest computation, we should come to 2500 BC as the time of Rig Veda". G C Pande also favours adate of 3000 BC or even earlier.
What, if anything, does this tell us about the logic of dating texts? The student will have half a dozennames to remember but little insight into a serious historical problem. To add to the confusion, we have asentence on page 92 that states "there are other scholars who consider Vedic culture as different from thatof the Harappan civilisation." If we look for any understanding of why they suggest this, we will bedisappointed.
Advertisement
Finally, it may be worth considering what happens with four issues that have been marginalised fromstandard histories. One would have expected that in a new history written in the twentyfirst century, theseissues would have found some space. But that is not to be. The first issue that we can consider is thetreatment of regions, and I will simply focus on the treatment of Tamilakam, the ancient Tamil region. On page153 we find a map of south India, where Gangaikondacholapuram and Tanjavur are listed as sites of the SangamAge. Obviously, chronology has been sacrificed. There is a discrepancy of several centuries between theSangam Age and the period of the later Chola rulers when these settlements emerged as important urban centres,but then, perhaps from the perspective of the author, notions of time are generally irrelevant for regionalhistory. It is also worth looking at the treatment of the tradition of Bhakti in the text. The Alvars arereferred to as Vaisnava saints on page 193, they become Vaisnava devotees on page 199 and finally on page 229we learn that "The Bhakti movement led by Nayanars (Saiva saint) and Alvars (Vaisnava saint)spread all over the country. These saints went from place to place carrying their message of love anddevotion." Which of these three statements is the student to accept? Clearly, time, space and factualaccuracy are trivial matters when reconstructing regional histories. And this is the case of a region whosehistory has been amongst the best researched in the last few decades.
Advertisement
It may also be useful to see what happens with issues of gender. Women pop in and out of the pages of thebook occasionally, in connection with inheritance, where we are told that they could inherit in the absence of"male issues" (p 96) or if they were the only child of their parents (p 86), a situation that is portrayedas being virtually constant (p 160, p 226). None of the concerns with engendering history that have beenraised in the last three decades find space in the book. If we expect to find discussions about women inconnection with other matters, including their roles in production, or in alternative religious traditionssuch as Buddhism and Jainism, we will be disappointed.
Advertisement
Perhaps more intriguing is the treatment of the concept of ‘tribe’. Clearly, this has become a dirtyword, to be scrupulously eschewed. This may have to do with the fact that ‘tainted’ scholars such asR S Sharma had suggested "that the social formation represented in Vedic literature could best be understoodin terms of the category of a tribal society in transition. In the present book, the only reference to tribeoccurs in the context of the Kusanas (p 145) who are connected with central Asian tribes. There is also anillustration of tribal coins on page 142, but beyond that the student would be left in the dark about thepossibility of tribal societies existing in the past. In other words, tribal populations will now be denied apast and will perhaps figure as a figment of the imagination of Christian missionaries, if at all.
Advertisement
It is also worth examining what happens to the question of untouchability. This almost surfaces twice inthe book: once, on page 97, in the context of the later Vedic period, when we learn that "The most glaringevil of the jati system, namely, the concept of untouchability had not yet reared its ugly head". Thenwe suddenly stumble on some remarkable information on page 225. "The transformation of a specific professioninto jati and the increasing phenomenon of hypergamous unions between different jati led to therise of mixed jati. Jatis were also formed on the basis of religious sects such as lingayats, virasaivas,svetambaras, and digambaras, etc. The lowest were the antyajatis of whom Chandalas are the most importantrepresentatives." Does this tell us anything at all about the oppressions associated with caste, and howthese affected the lives of vast sections of people? And do our children have a right to know andunderstand these issues?
Advertisement
One is left wondering whether women, dalits, tribals are part of the nation or not, or whether the nationis envisaged as an upper caste, brahmanical construct, centred on the Ganga valley. Surely, the NationalCouncil of Educational Research and Training has some responsibilities to discharge towards the vast majorityin the country. We have been hearing about how the sentiments of self-proclaimed religious leaders havebeen taken into consideration in rewriting History. What is obvious is that the first casualty of thisrewriting has been truth. Presumably, these so-called religious leaders do not include the quest for truth intheir agenda. Neither does the NCERT.
It is in this context that it is absolutely essential that many more of us engage in what has been calledthe battle of the books. We need to intervene in as many ways as possible, as parents, teachers, concernedcitizens of the country, to ensure that future generations of school-going children learn histories that movebeyond a preoccupation with dynastic vicissitudes, and can be equipped to understand and intervene in anincreasingly complicated social scenario.
