You must Sign In to post a response.
  • Category: Miscellaneous

    Why too much blame on Marxist historians?

    The present political dispention seems to be de legitimising Marxist view of history. There seems to be a particular attack against the view of Muslim rule delicted by Marxist. Everyone may have diffetence of opinion. But it must be debated and not degrading the other view. Marxist wrote histoey in a way to foster unity between Hindus and Muslims. The peculiar aspect they also stood for nation building along with the Hindutva brand of historians. But marxist wanted to protray muslim rule as benign so hindu section of population will not antagnise their muslim counterparts. Hindutva historians way of protraying history seems to divide nation communally.
  • #613268
    I still remember I was in IXth standard. My history teacher was teaching in the class (in Bengali): Äkbar was a secular Badshah. There were three Hindus in his Navratna-Sabha". I asked from the last bench: ''Sir, what is the big deal about it? India has always been a Hindu-majority country. What is so great if only three out of nine Ratnas are Hindus". Our teacher stopped for a while, didn't answer and nodded his head slowly. Similarly in Class-Xth, when my father was teaching that Aurangzheb had the maximum number of Hindus in his employment, I said that that was simply because the number of employees increased manifold during his time and not because of his so-called secularism.

    I am glad that educated young men of India have started questioning the 'nonsense' which has been written by marxist (small m) historians and is being taught to promote so-called secularism. Secularism can't be taught by whitewashing glorious periods of Indian history and glorifying the invaders. Secularism can't be propagated by insulting majority community because of whom secularism exists in this country.

    Beware! I question everything and everybody.

  • #613270
    Why do you call Mughal rulers as invaders?

  • #613271
    The history always says the greatness of other than Hindu rulers by mentioning the small issues which were done not to favour Hindus but for their comfort. This is the most unfortunate state of this country. When more than 50% of the population are Hindus, how the rulers can avoid not appointing the Hindus at least for some posts. This is never an indication of secularism. It is not an indication of their belief in secularism.
    Another problem with his historians has they never mentioned how many other religious people were there in the Sabha of these Hindu rulers.
    Slowly the people of India are able to understand the way in which this history is written and they started exploring the facts. This is a good development.

    always confident

  • #613274
    1. My previous response was an example of wrong interpretation of facts by marxist historians to glorify invaders and their successors.
    2. Let me give another set of examples. Do any of us know the name of the king of Surat who allowed the persecuted Parsis to settle there? Do we know the name of the king of Kerala who allowed the Muslims to build the first mosque? Do we know the name of the ruler who allowed the Syrian Christians to build the first church. I do not know. But why? Why don't they teach this in history? Aren't these examples of secularism? Aren't these rulers secular? Then why do the marxist historians remain silent about these rulers?
    3. I do consider the Mughals invaders because the first Mughal ruler invaded Delhi. His successors are also invaders because they attacked different regions of India and tried to destroy the culture and custom of those areas.

    Beware! I question everything and everybody.

  • #613277
    But even Aryans, Scythians, Hunas, Greeks, Parthians came from outside and attacked places in India. why singling ouy Mughals. ? Then aryans are too invaders the begining of vedic religion. They even fought with Dravidians and proto Dravidians Hinduism has its base in Aryan vedic religion. Then as per the theory even Hindus were invaders.

  • #613280
    Marxist historians have also writern about Marthanda varma, Ajit singh, Zamorin rulers who have been secular. They have also mentioned of Hindu rulers who were secular. In fact they have also given account of some of the facts such as building of first church, Mosque. etc.
    And Mughals did not follow Muslim rule. As fact Mughals belonged to orthodox Sunni Sect of muslim. According to their law state must not patronize music, Arts. But Mughals as we know led to the famous Mughal school of painting. Mughals also patronised secular Art.

  • #613283
    "Then aryans are too invaders the begining of vedic religion. ''-Many historians doubt this fact. Even if they came from outside, the enriched our culture. But this did not happen during the medieval period.

    Greeks and Hunas are always considered as invaders. There is no doubt about it.

    Beware! I question everything and everybody.

  • #613284
    The present concentration on the Mughal era while reading History is due to reasons that are obvious. India's history does not after all start or end with the Mughals. While a group of people are slamming the Muslim invaders, let us not forget that there is another group within the Hindus who are slamming the rulers before that for the sufferings they had to undergo (the effects of which is still prevalent as per them) due to the caste system that was introduced. They say that they were oppressed and exploited. Why don't we include all those in our reviews about history?
    India was basically a group of princely states or kingdoms and did include the area that is now known as Pakistan. We must understand that History need not always be true to the core and so must be able to approach and analyze the records available with an open (not liberal as such) mind. To say that one version is correct while the other is not would be too naive.

    'It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it'. - Aristotle.

  • #613286
    The above response is totally meaningless and irrelevant to the context. The author of this thread has raised a question and the Members are supposed to discuss this question and give an answer. The previous response is trying to bring political angle to this discussion.

    Moreover, the previous response tries to define the concept of India politically, the concept which has been discarded more than 100 years ago. India is a cultural concept rather than geographical or political. I prescribe A.L. Basham and Vincent Smith for the author of this response.

    Beware! I question everything and everybody.

  • #613300
    History is the description of past events by a group of historians and it sometimes happen that there are biased views contributed by them and the most acceptable form of history is passed on to the next generation. Unfortunately the final version of history may not be a honest depiction of those ages but as an official version it remains in the education or social media for a considerable time.

    Theoretically speaking a non political and academic person will be writing history in an honest and comprehensible manner but this seldom happens in reality. The contemporary Govt systems influence it to a large degree and history gets distorted to that extent. So it is not surprising if the historically represented facts may differ from the grass root realities.

    Knowledge is power.

  • #613312
    In India, there is a breed of historians who are more of nationalistic mindset. They brand any historian whose writings are not liked by them as Marxist historians. This trend is more visible now. As observed by the author, the so-called Marxist historians wrote in a manner that fosters Hindu, Muslim unity, which the right-wing group of historians do not like.
    " Be Good and Do Good "

  • #613323
    What is the relationship between events happened in the past and 'Hindu-Muslim unity'? Why can't people think of writing the past events dispassionately as these happened? Why can't the historians present facts truthfully? And how can 'liberals'' provide excuses for barbarism, hooliganism, destruction, pillage, plunder and rape?
    Beware! I question everything and everybody.

  • #613345
    Partha Kansabanik
    This very question was asked exactly around 250 years ago to british by Indian national historians. It is known that the kind of history we are reading now was started by British in the year 1773. Previously Indian historians were mostly court poets who described the exploits of their rulers in epics and poems(both during rule of Hindus and Muslims ). Eg. Bana bhatta, Abul Fazl.
    This history writing had some defects.
    1. Dates were writern from starting of coronarion of rulers.
    2. They were eulogies.

    British after translating Indian history from Pandits and Maulavis wrote certain features. They were.
    1. Indians had no sense of history.
    2. The entire history of India can be divided into Hindu rule(upto 1206 AD) muslim rule( 1206 - 1757 AD)and British period(from 1757 AD). India was glorious during Hindu rule, communal during Muslim rule and progressive during British rule.
    3. India's history starts after rule of Chandra Gupta Maurya.
    4. India had to be colonised to liberate them from muslim oppressive rule.
    5. A wrong intrepretarion of Vedas as Gentoo laws.
    6. Indian rulers are despots.

    Indian intellectuals clearly saw the danger. If Indians were to be divided in the basis of relegion and general contempt then they rose to the situation.
    They extensively studied history and materials. They studied and opposed every thing british said.
    1. Indian history to be divided into Ancient(upto 647 AD. )
    2. Medeival (647-1707 AD)
    3. Modern (1707 to recent past)

    Now they questioned british way of seeing history. The word muslim rule is disputed. It was argued Several Hindu kings ruled along with Muslims like Marathas, Sikhs, Vijayanagara). People were mostly hindus.

    Further the marxist historians give explaination to their division as
    1. During Medeival peiod feudalism was prevelant which starts from 647. During Ancient period it was mostly Constituional monarchy.
    2. This point helped by James Princep and few Oriental britishers along with that Indian history starts from 2700 BC with Indus valley and mauryas came much later.
    3. Indian rulers were constitutional monarchs and had to rule according to some general accepted principle and not on whims and fancies. They were benevelont despots in few cases.
    4. Muslim rule in India was secular. For this they have extensively studied the Mughal Administrative system.

    This raised the spirits of young Indians. Hindu and muslims stood as brothers. This what happened during Swadeshi Movement (1906-1911).
    Now as some mwmbers have pointed out it is not apppinting a few Hindu officials which made the Mughal rule secular. Appart from it there were certain fundamental features in Mughal Administration.
    In Mughal administration maintenance of law and order and Agrarian Revenue collection were done by same officers. Simply the structure is as below.
    There are mansabdars. They have some lands according to their rank determined by the number of horses they miantain for army. They must collect Agriculture tax from peasants and take his salary from it and give the remaining to state in the form of cash or land.
    In this situation emporer or Mughal nobles court had little role in land administration. Mansabdars were given free run. These Mansabdars sometimes became very powerful to overcome their King. mansab rank 7000 is given to generals. In this mandabdars had significant Hindu population.
    This must be understood in the next british rule were Indians could not raise above the post of head constable in police, tahsildar in Revenue. Whereas during Mughal rule Hindus can get even general post. There was no differentiation between Hindu and Muslim peasants. Everyone was suppressed equally.
    There is much more. Mughals took wives from Rajputs and even sons from those wives became the next rulers. If there was treachery mostly Hindu generals stood with Mughals while it was muslims generals who defected to oppossite camp. Eg. Battle of Plassey.
    The one point which is given more importance is destruction of temples. But mughals had no other choice. There were economic and political compulsions to destroy them. Even Hindu rulers have done it.
    Some mughal emporers like Akbar and Shah Jahan encouraged debate between various relegions. They patronised secular Arts and thousands of craftsman families who were mostly Hindus. This is actually banned in Muslim books.
    During Mughals rule ulemas must not interfere in Administration. This was very peculiar considering in Arab world it was relegious persons who controlled King.
    All these facts were given by marxist historians to allay the fears of Hindu population that muslims are out there to suppress.
    British till their last coffin tried the best to protray Hindus and muslims as enemies. This was done by legitimising claims of Hindu Mahasabha and Muslim league to that of congress everytime. Eg. Communal award.
    This is why marxist historians took history to drive out British rule.

  • #613348
    Quote No. 1: "But marxist wanted to protray muslim rule as benign so hindu section of population will not antagnise their muslim counterparts. ''
    Quote No. 2; "All these facts were given by marxist historians to allay the fears of Hindu population that muslims are out there to suppress. ''
    These two quotes from the author are sufficient to prove that marxist historians work with an agenda. So, we are studying agenda-driven history.

    "During Mughals rule ulemas must not interfere in Administration. ''-A factually incorrect statement. In every Muslim ruler's kingdom including that of the Mughals, quazis had a very important role in administration.

    Some more examples of agenda-driven history writings of the marxist historians:
    1. Indian history books are totally silent about Goa inquisition. That is the handiwork of those marxist historians. Is it for 'Hindu-Christian bhai-bhai' theory?
    2. Mis-reporting of Mopilah barbarism as agrarian class-struggle. The murder, rape, forced conversion, loot, desecration of temples, etc. committed by the Moplahs during the modern age of 1920s have been explained as agrarian class-struggle by marxist historians. The Namboodripad Government of Kerala even started pension for those surviving Moplah hooligans during late fifties.

    Time has come to throw these marxist historians along with their ''historical nonsense'' in the dustbin of history.

    Beware! I question everything and everybody.

  • #613353
    The problem the hindutva brand of historians also have hidden agenda. They want to protray muslim rule as the most infamous.
    As in my earlier post we have seen how Hindu kings have also indulged in all the attrocities. Then why singling out Muslims.
    In this first place Mughals have become part and parcel of Indian culture and history. Terming them as invaders is absurd. Babur came of Fargana, Afghanistan which was a part of Indian Sub continent.
    Every historians have hidden agenda. Hindutva historians wanted to protray muslim rule as unwanted.
    Mughal rule same like Aryans brought in a rich culture. The Arts and Architecture flourished. Persian Spinning wheel revolutionised Agriculture.
    This kind of viewing history as invaders vs indegenious ruins and furthers Hindu Muslim divide. Muslim brothers too much feel proud of Indian history. Hindutva brand of Historians want to protray as if Hindus and Muslims have different history. This is not true. Both Hindus and Muslims can be proud of their history.
    Every history writing has a bias
    History is social and science and differs from the perspective taken.
    Even in european history we have debated surrounding. Eg. Some historians say UK is responsible for WW1 while some say Germany.
    Events in history must be viewed without any relegious bias too. Let us see history as King A defeated King B along and not as invader was defeated by Indegenious ruler. This is what I am opposing.
    Again we named our missiles prithvi and Pakistan Ghori. See the political ramificarions. It seems as if prithivi - Ghori rivalry is still continuing as India and Pakistan. when will this stop? When both Hindus and Muslims are going to be equally proud of their culture, relegion and history. History must teach us leasons and not hatred with this invader vs local division. In the first place history must not divide but unite people.
    There are historians in Tamil Nadu with ample evidence to show how Aryans destroyed Dravidian culture. Let us stop this nonsense.
    Hindutva brand of history is not solution to Marxist. Every Hindutva marxist liberal modern Dravidian historians must sit and discuss in conferences, Universities, Syllabus committees, Institution, ICHR by accomodaring various views in finding truth.
    There is no question of puting some history in trash. Rather discussing and accomodating different view is the only solution.

  • #613363
    Very nice detailed discussion regarding the Indian history by Mr. Gokul and Partha. Most religions and sects have majority of its followers following the middle path, leading life beside each other. Only a few who lean to the extreme think or act causing harm to others. These were much more common in ancient times because, kingdoms needed to be guarded, empires needed to be built. As I've mentioned in an early reply and as Mr.Umesh has mentioned there would be a bias in the way history has been recorded and re-told now.

    Just two points
    Views of Karl Marx on Hinduism and Indian History is mostly drawn from the British and colonials version. Marxism has often been quoted to having a soft corner to minorities.
    The Hinduism recorded by ancient Hindu Historians and authorities who have a knowledge of the Sanskrit scripts and vedas were better equipped to recount our Indian culture.

  • Sign In to post your comments