Thursday, October 30, 2014


The history writing by the British was a deliberate and systematic effort. The British used history of India as a tool for demoralizing the natives. History of India was twisted, falsified and misinterpreted on a grand scale. In a letter dated December 16, 1868 the famous Indologist Max Muller wrote to the Duke of Argyll, the then Secretary of State of India,
‘India has been conquered once, but India must be conquered again and that second conquest should be a conquest by education’. (Ref: ‘The Life and Letter of F. Max Muller, edited by Mrs. Max Muller, 1902, Vol.1, p.357). Prof. Max
Muller was not just a philosopher, he was also an examiner for the Indian Civil Service (ICS) examination. Teaching of falsified history played a great part in this ‘second conquest’.* Who were these British history writers ?
They were mainly army officers and administrators of the East India Company. For example: Major General John Malcolm – A Memoir of the Central India (1824) Captain Grant Duff – History of the Marathas (1826)
Gen. Briggs – History of the Rise of Mohammedan Power in India (1829) Lt.Colonel James Todd – Anals and Antiquities of Rajasthan(1829-32) M. Elphinstone (Resident at Peshwa Court, later Governor of Bombay), History of India (1841)
Joseph Cunningham (brother of Gen.A.Cunningham) History of Sikhs (1849) Lt. R.F.Burton – History of Sindh (1851)

Thus this is akin to victors writing the history of the vanquished. How many American Western movies depict the generosity and the bravery of the native Americans? Do you know of a single British movie depicting the courage, intelligence and skill of the German and Japanese soldiers? Hence we can imagine what kind of ‘history’ these British officers and administrators must have written or the slant there in. But these very books became standard textbooks in India and were prescribed for teaching the later day examinees of the Indian Civil service and the Indian army.

British Version of Indian History :

Until the invasion of India by Alexander, there was nothing worth mentioning in India. After Alexander, the Greeks taught civilization to Indians, and gave them the Western ideas. Then came the Shakas, Huns, Kushans etc. They also kept teaching the natives. In the eighth century Mohammed bin Kasim invaded India. It marked the begining of the Muslim rule. Then came the Ghazanvis, Ghoris, Gulams, Turks, Afgans, Khiljis, Tughalaqs, Lodis and Mughals. They were very brave and noble. They carried out reforms after reforms. Lastly came the English. They could not tolerate the prevailing anarchy. ‘We rule India’ they said. Some kings accepted their protection. Those who resisted, collapsed like a deck of cards. The British taught peace and prosperity to this troubled land. Under them everyone is happy. They introduced rule of law which Indians never knew before. Thus the history of hindus (according to the British) is as dark as coal tar. There is nothing in it to be proud of. It is natural that only foreigners should rule India. The best the natives can do is to serve the British by becoming their obedient servants. Why could Indians not counter them with our own version of history ? 

Neglect of History in India :

It must be admitted in all fairness, that it was the British who first wrote the history of India. The Hindus probably are the only race, who despite having such intelligence, bravery and tremendous capacity for successive revivals, have showed such pathetic neglect of history. There was utter lack of historical sense. Lokamanya Tilak writes “Even if we read the whole of Harsha-Charita by Banabhatta, we cannot make out when did this famous king rule or what was the extent of his kingdom ? Had it not been for the Chinese traveller Hsuen Tsang (and the English scholars who translated his memoirs from Chinese into English) we would have never known the history of Harsha “. Records were not properly kept and where they were kept they were not preserved. Even today very important documents are getting rotten and destroyed by insects, in many families, but the owners will not give them to historical societies. History as a subject did not always have a place in education. For example, Maharaja of Jaipur, JaiSingh I never learned about the history of Bappa raval, Prithvi raj Chuhan, Mahmud of Ghazni, Mohammed Ghori and others. During the upbringing of Peshwa Bajirao I, he learnt nothing about the East India Comapny and its resistance to Shivaji at Surat, the history of the Mughals or the history of Maratha-Mughal struggle. Far reaching consequences of such neglect were never realized. A true historian should have the ability to doubt the validity of currently held beliefs in light of new evidence. reject the traditional line of thinking when it becomes evident that it was based on wrong assumptions or weak, flimsy foundations. Analyze the evidence critically and establish the facts based on common sense, reason and logic. All this was cleverly disallowed by the British. Historical research was reduced the drab work of compiling data and translation of documents. The faculty of interpretation was strongly discouraged. It is therefore essential that Indian history be rewritten. 

Rewriting Does Not Mean Fabrication : 

It must be emphasized that rewriting of Indian history does not mean fabrication, as was done by the Nazis or the Communists. Savarkar wrote in 1937 : “ To praise one’s ancestors out of affection for them may be foolish, but humane. However to tolerate deliberate denunciation of the ancestors without challenging the allegations is disgraceful. Because such falsehoods, if repeated often will make us lose self respect and confidence” . “Only those people avoid mention of their defeats in the past that are not strong enough to avenge the defeats “. “When writing history the writer must write the events as they happened. He should not concern himself about the effect of that writing on present situation. .. It is natural to write about glorious deeds of our forefathers, but we are reluctant to describe disgraceful event or disasters, defeats. A historian must avoid such hiding of facts. Whatever happened in the past it should be described as it happened… “

Appeasement of Muslims Leads to Falsification of History by GOI : In December 1937, Savarkar said ” Following
appeasement of Muslims, the government is now trying to pervert history. It is well known that in 1318, Harpaldev of Devagiri was skinned alive by Kutb-uddin Khilji of Delhi. This fact is hidden and the history books tell us that he was
simply arrested. Sambhaji, the brave Maratha king was also tortured to death by Aurungzeb. But history books say that he too was simply arrested. How shameless can they be! “ In the same year Savarkar wrote “ Look at the present attempt by Gandhi and his followers to suppress the atrocities of Muslim rulers and even glorify them (for e.g. Siraj-uddaula and Tipu) .. But has this perversion stopped the riots and the arrogance of Muslims? No.. It is nonsense to say that if we describe the battles or conflicts of the past, the present generation will fight battles again! “ The practice of perverting history continues. Here are some examples: In the medieval times the main source of government income was the land
revenue. Under Hindu rulers its used to be 16 %. Under Akbar it became 33 %. It stayed same under Jehangir. Under the
Golden rule of Shah Jahan it was raised to 50 % and it stayed the same during Aurungzeb who added Jizya tax on
Hindus. Under Allauddin Khilji the land revenue also was 50 %. This information is kept out of history books. We are taught that in 1303 CE Allauddin Khilji defeated Rajputs and captured Chitod Fort. But we are never told that Hamer Singh, a Rajput prince defeated and recaptured the fort 10 years later. It is well known that Prophet Mohammed fled from Mecca to Medina in 622 CE. Muslims all over the world accept the fact. But in 1982 under pressure from Muslims Maharashtra government ordered that word ‘fled’ must be deleted. So now it reads that Prophet Mohammed went from mecca to Medina in 622 CE. Even Nehru would have been amazed by this because in his book ‘Some Glimpses of World History’ he does say that Prophet Mohammed fled from mecca to Medina. In 1982 the Central Ministry of Education issued guidelines for writing and teaching of Indian history which among other things forbid describing the medieval period as a period of conflict between Hindus and Muslims. In short, Shivaji’s virtues should not be glorified and Aurungzeb’s bigotry and despotic nature must not be described! In 1982 Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) in their publication ‘Taj Museum’ admitted that on the site of Taj Mahal stood the mansion (manzil) of Raja Man Singh which was at the time of in possession of his grand son Raja Jai Singh. So what happened to the mansion ? The answer is simple. It is the same as Taj mahal. But that much ASI official would not concede. In 1984 Prof.Marvin Mills wrote Director General
of Archaeological Survey of India that the Taj dispute be settled by scientific tests on brick samples taken on 20 locations. The Director General replied “The Taj is well dated on documentary evidence .” BARC, Bombay and PRL, Ahmedabad are also seized of the problem. (this was a lie. Both the labs did not receive any samples for testing) and IT IS NOT
Such has been Government of India. What about the historians?

No comments:

Post a Comment