- 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.
2. Effect of British Version of History on Indian Leaders
“These (British) Gurus have been sent by God from far off lands” G.H. Deshmukh alias Lokhitawadi in 1848 CE in Shatapatre no.46. This view was also shared by Justice M.G.Ranade and Mahatma Phule.
“It must indeed be considered our good fortune that when Christian missionaries set out to spread Christianity in the world, they did not forget India…” Keshavachandra, Brahmo Samaj leader in 1860 CE.
Gopal Krishna Gokhale founded Servants of Indian Society in 1905. The members of this order were committed to a frank acceptance of the British connection as ordained in the inscrutable dispensation of Providence for India’s good (Ref: Political India 1832-1932′,J.Cunning ,editor, 1932, p.186).
This despite the horrors of British administration during the plague outbreak of 1897 and 7 years of suppressive reign of Curzon (1898-1905).
‘The Hindus’ has been a life of continuous defeat. It is a mode for survival of which every Hindu will feel ashamed’– Dr.Ambedkar in 1937.
Even the anti-Hindu writer of ‘Early History of India’ like Vincent Smith dismisses such fantastic statements. Savarkar wrote a resounding reply to Ambedkar’s outburst and said ‘What Ambedkar says is false. Hindus have survived the onslaughts of the foreigners over the centuries because of their bravery. But even if what Ambedkar says were true, should he not be determined to avenge past defeats ?’
Amazing ! What kind of history of India was taught to our leaders ?
3. British Version of Indian History
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 ?
4. 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.
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.
5. Rewriting Does Not Mean Fabrication
‘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…’
6. Late Awakening
In 1991 Bharat Itihas Sanshodhak Mandal (Indian Society for Historical Research) was formed.
G.S.Sardesai’s ‘New History of Marathas’ came out in 1946 exactly 120 years after Grant Duff’s History of the Marathas. Incalculable damage had been done in 120 years.
But the awakening had begun. The question then arises, why did not things change after the British left India in 1947 ?
7. Appeasement of Muslims By Congress Leaders
In 1938 Hindus launched an unarmed struggle for their legitimate rights in Hyderabad state, Gandhi did not support them and said ‘I do not want to embarrass the Nizam’.
Congress was in power in C.P., U.P., Bihar, Orissa, Bombay and Madras from 1937 and 1939. Not once the Congress ministers stood up to unreasonable demands of the Muslims. The same lieutenants became chief ministers of various states in 1946.
After independence Nehru’s secularism always meant capitulation to Muslims and anti-Hindu politics. Thus under Nehru years and early Indira Gandhi rule Gandhian appeasement hangover was still intact. It must be noted that during all the Lok Sabha elections after 1947, the Congress party todate has NOT EVEN ONCE received even 50 percent of popular vote. Thus a 10 percent vote swing can change the power equation in New Delhi. Under these conditions, Muslim vote bank had disproportionate importance. Thus in later years (particularly after emergency) capitulation to the Muslim demands and appeasement became a tool for staying in power.
8. Effect of Appeasement of Muslims
A school in Bombay used to teach Gita as the part of studies. It was not objected to by the British. But in 1963 Education Department of Maharashtra threatened to stop the Government grant until Gita teaching is stopped. Of course the government provides grants to Madrsas and convents without hesitation.
Nehru even wanted to remove word ‘Hindu’ out of Benaras Hindu University, but not the word ‘Muslim’ from Aligarh Muslim University.
When Abdul Reheman Antulay was chief minister of Maharashtra, a deputation of Muslims demanded following:
- Urdu should be a compulsory subject in schools
- 25 % of seats in Police and Civil Service be reserved for Muslims
- Government land be given to build mosques
After this, an Urdu Academy was started in Maharashtra. Government newspaper Lokrajya is now published in Urdu and Marathi. There are no prizes for guessing how many people in Maharashtra speak Urdu (If you consider Muslims from Miraj as Urdu speakers, you must be calling Bombay Hindi as the best Hindi ever spoken).
Urdu was made second state language in Bihar in December 1980 even though the regional language Maithily spoken by 5 times more people was denied the status. In U.P. Urdu was made a second language in February 1982.
In December 1981, Indira Gandhi recognized the Moplas as patriots, freedom fighters despite their barbaric atrocities on Hindus in 1921.
July 18, 1982 issue of ‘Shree’ a Marathi weekly from Mumbai carried an article by Mr.D.B.Pradhan entitled ‘Pre-Islamic Vedic Religion in the Gulf States’. Government of Maharashtra immediately banned the issue under the pretext that it hurt sentiments of Muslims. Mumbai High Court later declared the ban illegal.
The most flagrant and unashamed example of Muslim appeasement came under V.P.Singh who declared Prophet Mohammed’s birthday an Indian national holiday. In his obsession for Muslim appeasement he did not realize that the birth and death of Prophet Mohammed fall on the same day. That day, Id-e-Milad was already a national holiday!
Last year Doordarshan started a Urdu news broadcast in Banglore even though there are more people in Karnatak speaking Marathi, Telugu, Tamil than Urdu. These led to riots when Muslim pelted stones from a mosque on a peaceful procession.
During the past 5 years how many times have you heard from the GOI about the 300,000 Hindus from kashmir valley who are refugees out by in their own country. How many times has GOI spoken about rights of minorities in Kashmir valley ? None of the recent 3 prime ministers ever bothered to visit refugee camps even in New Delhi.
9. Appeasement of Muslims Leads to Falsification of History by GOI
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 CONSIDERED DESIRABLE TO HAVE ANY FURTHER INVESTIGATION AT THIS STAGE.
Such has been Government of India. What about the historians ?
10. Attitude of Indian historians
Second of course is the case of Taj mahal. Shah Jahan’s ‘Badshahnama’ which is the only major Mughal document the British did NOT translate (perhaps intentionally) categorically states that it was Raja ManSingh’s palace that was taken over by Shah Jahan. In 1968 when P.N. Oak published his theory based on his translation of Badshahnama, suddenly those very pages were declared irrelevant and out of context by Indian historians. If Mr. Oak’s translation is wrong then why do the Indian historians have courage to publish word to word translation of the Badshahnama as Mr. Oak has done or accept his translation.
Two letters exposing falsity of Taj Mahal legend by Mr Oak, et al. were published in the internationally renowned ‘Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) Journal in June and September 1980. No architect or historian has challenged these letters. Indian historians have of course kept quiet.
The most glaring intentional scientific fraud by historians under government payroll, came after December 6, 1992. During the destruction of Babri structure various remnants of the pre-existing temple surfaced. These included a shila-lekh describing the origin and scale of a magnificent temple at the very site of Ram Janma Bhumi, several intricate carvings and an image of Shri Ram. Instead of verifying or falsifying the historicity of the evidence in the field, 70 of these ’eminent’ historians and archaeologists (from JNU) took at out full page advertisements in national newspapers the very next day proclaiming ‘the evidence was planted’. Of course they did not want to perform scientific tests on the evidence. What if the truth is revealed ?
Of course no Indian historian questioned why only the key pages from Babarnama, for the 3 months of 1528 CE during his stay in Ayodhya are missing ?
11. Reasons for the attitude of Indian historians
Mr. Purandare raises money for many charitable causes, from his lectures on Shivaji. An institution (a school, orphanage, a trust etc) would arrange his lectures. The money raised by ticket sales would be given to Mr.Purandare, which he would promptly donate to the relevant charity. A noble act indeed ! But the ‘secular’ government officials did not see it that way. Income tax officials said that the money thus raised was given to Mr.Purandare. So it is his income and as such he must pay tax on it ! While the Maharashtra Government officers maintained that by delivering lectures on Shivaji, Mr.Purandare was entertaining people. As such he must pay entertainment tax ! After a great deal of public outcry Mr. Purandare’s lectures were given exemption from the entertainment tax. But Mr.Purandare knows well that the secular government can remove that exemption any time and therefore he cannot expose its Muslim appeasement.
Isn’t it amazing that Maharashtra Government considers movies on Gandhi and Ambedkar exempt from entertainment tax, but lectures on Shivaji for a charitable organization are not exempt ?
(Other examples of historians maintaining silence despite evidence to the contrary are Mr.D.V.Potdar, Dr.G.H.Khare, Mr.Setu Madhavrao Pagdi and Prof. Ram Nath.)