01-18-2009, 08:05 PM
PART EIGHT
Elsewhere he argues that the Babri Masjid:
âprotagonists are ⦠hell-bent on rejecting the historicity of the Ramayana. Their motivation is not far to seek: if they succeed in controverting the very historicity of Rama it would be much easier for them to argue that as there was no Rama there could not have been a Janma-Bhumi (birthplace), much less a temple there. And lo and behold, they complain that the âAyodhya diggings did not confirm the traditional notions of chronology of the so-called âsacredâ texts or even of the âepicâ story. It provided a rude shock insofar as the Rama saga centering around Ayodhya of the Tretayuga was not shown to be hundreds of thousands of years oldâ. What a demand!â
Perhaps B.B. Lal has employed this ironic voice, because he has been forced to repeatedly explain the same erroneous criticism of his work that has been thrown at him over and over again in endless editorials. In his published rejoinders, he has tried for more than a decade to point out that his criticsâ statements concerning his work are incomplete. Yet, year after year, they repeat the same partial data to underscore their assertions. Journalists, such as the editor of The Hindu, remain unimpressed by the data offered, seeming not to have read the rebuttals that are published in their newspapers.
Lal has now, in the minds of leftist scholars and Muralidharan and N. Ram-type journalists, become the saffron icon of Hindutva archaeologists. He is accused of manufacturing or falsifying data, when that data does not agree with the theories of the âBabri historiansâ. He is accused of hiding data that, these same historians claim must have existed, but cannot prove because of Lalâs treachery. This tact of attacking Lal is not limited to the English dailies, but his name is also brought up in the Lok Sabha from time to time by members of the opposition, particularly from the various Communist Parties, when they are seeking an example of a scholar whom they consider to be an opportunist having given up his secular scholarly principles in order to court government funds, or someone who is so completely incompetent that they could not be trusted to serve on the board of directors of governmental bodies such as the ICHR.
As argued at length, neither of these descriptions fits Professor Lal; he is neither an opportunist, incompetent, nor treacherous. His work is highly prized and he is known as a careful archaeologist. It is precisely because he has not shied away from certain debates that he has become controversial. In many ways, the controversies allowed him certain opportunities to continue his investigation into the politically incorrect but fascinating work on the Sarasvati River. Another tack used to attack Prof. Lal are the production of hair splitting articles mulling over Lalâs presumed bias in the interpretation of Painted Grey Ware sites and Carbon 14 dating and alluvial deposits. These technically dense reports often find their way into the media as well, recently in regards to the Aryan invasion and Sarasvati River.
But even these attempts to caste academic aspersions are not limited to a consideration of the data and inevitably also include statements such as Irfan Habib made about Dilip Chakraborti, âwhose sympathies with the ideological predilections of mainstream Indian archaeology have been especially marked in recent years.â What else has been marked in these years is the sustained attack against âmainstream Indian archaeologyâ and the disengagement with artifacts and facts. This discussion of the saffronization of Professor B.B. Lal offered a clear example of a scholar who is scapegoated. It has also shown how the DHG and ASHA have vengefully targeted âmainstreamâ Indian archaeologists. This division causes a rupture in the disciplines and has retarded the development of Indian historiography.
The above section highlighting the battles between leftist historians and âmainstreamâ Indian archaeologists, deserves an obituary rather than a conclusion. Given the tone of the debate, it is difficult to see a time when these schools of scholars will be able to create a healthy environment where disagreements are discussed and importantly, differences are respected.
The debate between Dr. Lal and the DHG brought up numerous points of discord, contentious issues in the narrative of "What is India?". There will never be a final interpretation of historical events. The past is fluid, this slipperiness means that our understandings of history are experienced selectively and those partial views and groundings impact the present. In a complex country like India, there are multiple presents acting simultaneously.
Abdul Kalam, the scientist who recently became the President of India, was called pejorative names by Muslim and Marxist leaders ostensively because he agreed to serve his country, at the behest of the Indian Nationalist BJP government. When someone of his fame is flayed in the English dailies for being too liberal, or too trans-India, too enamored by Indiaâs civilizational glories, how can someone like B.B. Lal, of far less public stature escape condemnation for presenting conclusions that could support patriotic, pro-Indian, trans-Subcontinental perspectives?
It may be astonishing to realize that not until Republic Day in January 2002 were ordinary Indian citizens allowed to fly the Indian flag. Up until that day, almost fifty-five years after independence, only government elites were allowed to fly the flag. Whether a holdover from the Raj--keeping the colors in the hands of the rulers, or an inherent fear of nationalism on the part of the framers of the Indian constitution, patriotism has not been encouraged, and the narrative of Indian history reflects that negative stance, with a focus on invasions and loss, the belittling of the indigenous self. The contributions of Abdul Kalam and B.B. Lal represent a hope for a bright future by bringing out what is best in India, and a bond with a history that is conducive to sustainable development in a post-traditional society.
Both Abdul Kalam and B.B. Lal, were condemned for making statements, about continuity of culture and Indiaâs glorious past, that were contrary to the position of scholars associated with SAHMAT and JNU. They became scapegoats. With each of them, their critics are nit picking, hair splitting, and retroactively politicizing decades of their work. The critics from the Delhi Historians Group, whom Arun Shourie might call the coterie of leftist historians (K.M. Shrimali, R.S. Sharma, H. Mukhia, R. Thapar, K.N. Panikkar, D.N. Jha, etc., etc.), preface their critiques of Lal and other scholars and even Kalam, with dire warnings that they have embraced cultural chauvinism, sold out objective secular scholarship, and are now using their work to further fascism. For them it is simplistic, you are either with them in their red fort of Indian intellectualism or you are a genocidal rapist.
The tone of the debate is intentionally rancorous and kept at a shrill pitch by that group who screams in the press and the Lok Sabha about the Talibanization of India by the "brigades" of murderous Hindutva Nazis... these viewpoints, such as from Communalism Combat, are even carried into hearings in the chambers of the US congress. In my opinion, this polarization is a huge problem. The coterie of leftists would be loath to discover any co-terminus goals with their saffron nemeses. They only read the rejoinders to their barrage of critiques as enemy propaganda, they don't take note of any engagement and adjust their information. Their only goal is to denigrate not to integrate or invite open debate.
Scholars from the Delhi Historians Group, ASHA, or other loosely organized acronyms housed at SAHMAT and JNU, are loath to descend to the unscholarly superstitious level of those dreaded Sanghis, also known as archaeologists. It is of great concern that the name Hindu is being dragged through the dirt by prefixes and suffixes such as Nazi and fascist and murdering rapists. If anyone disagrees, those pejoratives are also pasted to his or her name. This lack of engagement has caused a great loss of academic progress.
Certainly it would be beneficial if the debate were to focus on the issues and had less name calling and less sensationalizing. But even in the West, this is the case. At conferences and among scholars, I have been told that before I open my mouth to mention fascinating archaeological finds such as Dholavira, Kalibangan, Rakhigarhi, and other "Indus Valley" sites located in what is now geographically India... that I should first, before even saying or writing the controversial words "Sarasvati River" ... that I must stress very clearly, "I am against genocide in Gujarat". These day a scholar can't even mention the fact that Harappan/Indus Valley sites, based on important research conducted over the last few decades, are more aptly seen as a part of a greater Indus/Sarasvati culture, because many more sites have been found to the east of the Indus.
A discussion of these sites excavated by the ASI (Archaeological Survey of India) causes critics to claim that the ASI has been high-jacked by Hindutva, even when the ASI's research is corroborated by the work that has been done along the Ghaggar River in Pakistan by Prof. Mughal, who can not be said to be a Hindu Nationalist. Simply using the phrase, "Indus/Sarasvati" triggers a knee-jerk response. Scholars are obliged to go through agni pariksha time and again, regardless of the cold hard archaeological data that there is to discuss. Before speaking about terra cotta seals, bathing ghats, uniform sized bricks, excavated in Gujarat and Rajasthan and Haryana, the speaker first has to appear before the imaginary House on Un-Indological Activities and swear that they have never or would never murder minorities.
I must say that such a required caveat, stifles what should be a lively discussion about an interesting topic. Even so, among many scholars of Indian (South Asian) studies.... you are painted black if you do not ground yourself in accepted theories such as the Aryan Invasion/Migration, or if you look at the medieval period through a lens that includes culture and religion, as well as "accepted" approaches such as economics and government. If you mention Nalanda University, that had tens of thousands of students from all over India (even from foreign countries), studying a broad range of subjects, from Sanskrit to science, you are not allowed to mention that it was destroyed by Khilji⦠don't bring that up. If you do, you will be told that the Muslims only put the finishing touches on the end of Buddhism in India (which had been corrupted by Tantrism anyway), because the Brahmans (or the Brahmanism trope) had already destroyed most of the Buddhist viharas before Islamic invaders arrived.
If you point out that Hindus and Buddhists all studied at Nalanda and they taught the Vedas and the Buddhist texts, in Prakrits and Sanskrit, and had both pundits and bhikshus teaching there--a history of practices that seem to point out that the communities co-existed--you are called a romantic, trying to "prop up a Golden Age of Indian history that never existed except in the fantasy of Orientalists and Indian Nationalists". And you are told that you "didn't do your penance prior to speaking, please go back and repeat that you are not pro-genocide. Imagine that!!! Communalizing Nalanda!!!" Who's in denial here?
To tell you the truth this political problem has paralyzed the field, truly gummed it up. It is frustrating because those that demand the âagni parikshaâ hold the reigns of academia. Scholars are cowed into silence if they see certain correlations in data that may be frowned upon by their outspoken colleagues who see politics in every archaeological dig or every new or alternative interpretation.
These self-appointed tenured gatekeepers refuse to discuss the alternative perspectives because (1) they had already analyzed the Vedas, Upanishads, Indian historiography, and tucked away all that can be said ["ref. to my work (1987, 1991)" etc.]. And. most importantly, (2) any consideration of "alternative interpretations" is automatically "contaminated, equated with hate and racism, which will undoubtedly lead to fascism in India that will facilitate the resulting holocaust of the non-Hindu minorities" ... all laid at the feet of the dissenting scholar(s). That sure can put a damper on the discourse.... so much for talking about the granary at Lothal.... never mind looking at the curriculum at Nalanda, or ruins of a Jain temple, or the archaeology of Hastinapur, or images of Saagar/Samundra in the Rg Veda, much less emic or etic, or anything having to do with Hindu (or Buddhist, or Jain) community identities in any time period, period.
Subroto Roy, warned that there was a âbrittleness in conversations about India's polity todayâ. There is, I would point out, a destructive quality within the popular media in India (and similarly negative coverage about India in the USA) that adds to the fragility and fuels the discord. Pradful Bidwai, Kuldip Nayyar, are widely read in Pakistan and Bangladesh.... N. Ram is a favorite when he is at his Hindu-baiting best, and articles from "Communalism Combat" are found reprinted, even K.N. Panikkar's forays into journalism are given wide coverage in English dailies in Dhaka and Islamabad, Karachi.
The anti-Hindutva rhetoric, with the word "brigade" used repeatedly, replete with references to Nazis, is quite appealing to the middle class sentiments of Lahoris, those who read the English papers. That is why Arundhati Roy was so warmly received there recently. Obviously, intellectual Pakistanis love to host sophisticated India bashers. But if a Pakistani goes to India, such as the journalist Najim Sethi or the historian Mukarak Ali, or a singer or actress, and criticizes Pakistan, or sings a pro-Hindustan song, he or she is sometimes arrested and often harassed on his or her return
There are many excellent scholars who are stymied and effectively shut up, because they can not stand the heat, the very real personal and professional implications they must overcome are staggering... if they dare to argue against the dominate paradigms. This vitiated atmosphere is destructive. But that is what there is.... a huge self-hate campaign... particularly in the English press, which may ultimately backfire. But at least in the short term, it allows for very little discourse --with battle lines drawn but no chance for debate, no areas of convergence where the defenders and aggressors (whomever they are) can even agree to disagree.
Elsewhere he argues that the Babri Masjid:
âprotagonists are ⦠hell-bent on rejecting the historicity of the Ramayana. Their motivation is not far to seek: if they succeed in controverting the very historicity of Rama it would be much easier for them to argue that as there was no Rama there could not have been a Janma-Bhumi (birthplace), much less a temple there. And lo and behold, they complain that the âAyodhya diggings did not confirm the traditional notions of chronology of the so-called âsacredâ texts or even of the âepicâ story. It provided a rude shock insofar as the Rama saga centering around Ayodhya of the Tretayuga was not shown to be hundreds of thousands of years oldâ. What a demand!â
Perhaps B.B. Lal has employed this ironic voice, because he has been forced to repeatedly explain the same erroneous criticism of his work that has been thrown at him over and over again in endless editorials. In his published rejoinders, he has tried for more than a decade to point out that his criticsâ statements concerning his work are incomplete. Yet, year after year, they repeat the same partial data to underscore their assertions. Journalists, such as the editor of The Hindu, remain unimpressed by the data offered, seeming not to have read the rebuttals that are published in their newspapers.
Lal has now, in the minds of leftist scholars and Muralidharan and N. Ram-type journalists, become the saffron icon of Hindutva archaeologists. He is accused of manufacturing or falsifying data, when that data does not agree with the theories of the âBabri historiansâ. He is accused of hiding data that, these same historians claim must have existed, but cannot prove because of Lalâs treachery. This tact of attacking Lal is not limited to the English dailies, but his name is also brought up in the Lok Sabha from time to time by members of the opposition, particularly from the various Communist Parties, when they are seeking an example of a scholar whom they consider to be an opportunist having given up his secular scholarly principles in order to court government funds, or someone who is so completely incompetent that they could not be trusted to serve on the board of directors of governmental bodies such as the ICHR.
As argued at length, neither of these descriptions fits Professor Lal; he is neither an opportunist, incompetent, nor treacherous. His work is highly prized and he is known as a careful archaeologist. It is precisely because he has not shied away from certain debates that he has become controversial. In many ways, the controversies allowed him certain opportunities to continue his investigation into the politically incorrect but fascinating work on the Sarasvati River. Another tack used to attack Prof. Lal are the production of hair splitting articles mulling over Lalâs presumed bias in the interpretation of Painted Grey Ware sites and Carbon 14 dating and alluvial deposits. These technically dense reports often find their way into the media as well, recently in regards to the Aryan invasion and Sarasvati River.
But even these attempts to caste academic aspersions are not limited to a consideration of the data and inevitably also include statements such as Irfan Habib made about Dilip Chakraborti, âwhose sympathies with the ideological predilections of mainstream Indian archaeology have been especially marked in recent years.â What else has been marked in these years is the sustained attack against âmainstream Indian archaeologyâ and the disengagement with artifacts and facts. This discussion of the saffronization of Professor B.B. Lal offered a clear example of a scholar who is scapegoated. It has also shown how the DHG and ASHA have vengefully targeted âmainstreamâ Indian archaeologists. This division causes a rupture in the disciplines and has retarded the development of Indian historiography.
The above section highlighting the battles between leftist historians and âmainstreamâ Indian archaeologists, deserves an obituary rather than a conclusion. Given the tone of the debate, it is difficult to see a time when these schools of scholars will be able to create a healthy environment where disagreements are discussed and importantly, differences are respected.
The debate between Dr. Lal and the DHG brought up numerous points of discord, contentious issues in the narrative of "What is India?". There will never be a final interpretation of historical events. The past is fluid, this slipperiness means that our understandings of history are experienced selectively and those partial views and groundings impact the present. In a complex country like India, there are multiple presents acting simultaneously.
Abdul Kalam, the scientist who recently became the President of India, was called pejorative names by Muslim and Marxist leaders ostensively because he agreed to serve his country, at the behest of the Indian Nationalist BJP government. When someone of his fame is flayed in the English dailies for being too liberal, or too trans-India, too enamored by Indiaâs civilizational glories, how can someone like B.B. Lal, of far less public stature escape condemnation for presenting conclusions that could support patriotic, pro-Indian, trans-Subcontinental perspectives?
It may be astonishing to realize that not until Republic Day in January 2002 were ordinary Indian citizens allowed to fly the Indian flag. Up until that day, almost fifty-five years after independence, only government elites were allowed to fly the flag. Whether a holdover from the Raj--keeping the colors in the hands of the rulers, or an inherent fear of nationalism on the part of the framers of the Indian constitution, patriotism has not been encouraged, and the narrative of Indian history reflects that negative stance, with a focus on invasions and loss, the belittling of the indigenous self. The contributions of Abdul Kalam and B.B. Lal represent a hope for a bright future by bringing out what is best in India, and a bond with a history that is conducive to sustainable development in a post-traditional society.
Both Abdul Kalam and B.B. Lal, were condemned for making statements, about continuity of culture and Indiaâs glorious past, that were contrary to the position of scholars associated with SAHMAT and JNU. They became scapegoats. With each of them, their critics are nit picking, hair splitting, and retroactively politicizing decades of their work. The critics from the Delhi Historians Group, whom Arun Shourie might call the coterie of leftist historians (K.M. Shrimali, R.S. Sharma, H. Mukhia, R. Thapar, K.N. Panikkar, D.N. Jha, etc., etc.), preface their critiques of Lal and other scholars and even Kalam, with dire warnings that they have embraced cultural chauvinism, sold out objective secular scholarship, and are now using their work to further fascism. For them it is simplistic, you are either with them in their red fort of Indian intellectualism or you are a genocidal rapist.
The tone of the debate is intentionally rancorous and kept at a shrill pitch by that group who screams in the press and the Lok Sabha about the Talibanization of India by the "brigades" of murderous Hindutva Nazis... these viewpoints, such as from Communalism Combat, are even carried into hearings in the chambers of the US congress. In my opinion, this polarization is a huge problem. The coterie of leftists would be loath to discover any co-terminus goals with their saffron nemeses. They only read the rejoinders to their barrage of critiques as enemy propaganda, they don't take note of any engagement and adjust their information. Their only goal is to denigrate not to integrate or invite open debate.
Scholars from the Delhi Historians Group, ASHA, or other loosely organized acronyms housed at SAHMAT and JNU, are loath to descend to the unscholarly superstitious level of those dreaded Sanghis, also known as archaeologists. It is of great concern that the name Hindu is being dragged through the dirt by prefixes and suffixes such as Nazi and fascist and murdering rapists. If anyone disagrees, those pejoratives are also pasted to his or her name. This lack of engagement has caused a great loss of academic progress.
Certainly it would be beneficial if the debate were to focus on the issues and had less name calling and less sensationalizing. But even in the West, this is the case. At conferences and among scholars, I have been told that before I open my mouth to mention fascinating archaeological finds such as Dholavira, Kalibangan, Rakhigarhi, and other "Indus Valley" sites located in what is now geographically India... that I should first, before even saying or writing the controversial words "Sarasvati River" ... that I must stress very clearly, "I am against genocide in Gujarat". These day a scholar can't even mention the fact that Harappan/Indus Valley sites, based on important research conducted over the last few decades, are more aptly seen as a part of a greater Indus/Sarasvati culture, because many more sites have been found to the east of the Indus.
A discussion of these sites excavated by the ASI (Archaeological Survey of India) causes critics to claim that the ASI has been high-jacked by Hindutva, even when the ASI's research is corroborated by the work that has been done along the Ghaggar River in Pakistan by Prof. Mughal, who can not be said to be a Hindu Nationalist. Simply using the phrase, "Indus/Sarasvati" triggers a knee-jerk response. Scholars are obliged to go through agni pariksha time and again, regardless of the cold hard archaeological data that there is to discuss. Before speaking about terra cotta seals, bathing ghats, uniform sized bricks, excavated in Gujarat and Rajasthan and Haryana, the speaker first has to appear before the imaginary House on Un-Indological Activities and swear that they have never or would never murder minorities.
I must say that such a required caveat, stifles what should be a lively discussion about an interesting topic. Even so, among many scholars of Indian (South Asian) studies.... you are painted black if you do not ground yourself in accepted theories such as the Aryan Invasion/Migration, or if you look at the medieval period through a lens that includes culture and religion, as well as "accepted" approaches such as economics and government. If you mention Nalanda University, that had tens of thousands of students from all over India (even from foreign countries), studying a broad range of subjects, from Sanskrit to science, you are not allowed to mention that it was destroyed by Khilji⦠don't bring that up. If you do, you will be told that the Muslims only put the finishing touches on the end of Buddhism in India (which had been corrupted by Tantrism anyway), because the Brahmans (or the Brahmanism trope) had already destroyed most of the Buddhist viharas before Islamic invaders arrived.
If you point out that Hindus and Buddhists all studied at Nalanda and they taught the Vedas and the Buddhist texts, in Prakrits and Sanskrit, and had both pundits and bhikshus teaching there--a history of practices that seem to point out that the communities co-existed--you are called a romantic, trying to "prop up a Golden Age of Indian history that never existed except in the fantasy of Orientalists and Indian Nationalists". And you are told that you "didn't do your penance prior to speaking, please go back and repeat that you are not pro-genocide. Imagine that!!! Communalizing Nalanda!!!" Who's in denial here?
To tell you the truth this political problem has paralyzed the field, truly gummed it up. It is frustrating because those that demand the âagni parikshaâ hold the reigns of academia. Scholars are cowed into silence if they see certain correlations in data that may be frowned upon by their outspoken colleagues who see politics in every archaeological dig or every new or alternative interpretation.
These self-appointed tenured gatekeepers refuse to discuss the alternative perspectives because (1) they had already analyzed the Vedas, Upanishads, Indian historiography, and tucked away all that can be said ["ref. to my work (1987, 1991)" etc.]. And. most importantly, (2) any consideration of "alternative interpretations" is automatically "contaminated, equated with hate and racism, which will undoubtedly lead to fascism in India that will facilitate the resulting holocaust of the non-Hindu minorities" ... all laid at the feet of the dissenting scholar(s). That sure can put a damper on the discourse.... so much for talking about the granary at Lothal.... never mind looking at the curriculum at Nalanda, or ruins of a Jain temple, or the archaeology of Hastinapur, or images of Saagar/Samundra in the Rg Veda, much less emic or etic, or anything having to do with Hindu (or Buddhist, or Jain) community identities in any time period, period.
Subroto Roy, warned that there was a âbrittleness in conversations about India's polity todayâ. There is, I would point out, a destructive quality within the popular media in India (and similarly negative coverage about India in the USA) that adds to the fragility and fuels the discord. Pradful Bidwai, Kuldip Nayyar, are widely read in Pakistan and Bangladesh.... N. Ram is a favorite when he is at his Hindu-baiting best, and articles from "Communalism Combat" are found reprinted, even K.N. Panikkar's forays into journalism are given wide coverage in English dailies in Dhaka and Islamabad, Karachi.
The anti-Hindutva rhetoric, with the word "brigade" used repeatedly, replete with references to Nazis, is quite appealing to the middle class sentiments of Lahoris, those who read the English papers. That is why Arundhati Roy was so warmly received there recently. Obviously, intellectual Pakistanis love to host sophisticated India bashers. But if a Pakistani goes to India, such as the journalist Najim Sethi or the historian Mukarak Ali, or a singer or actress, and criticizes Pakistan, or sings a pro-Hindustan song, he or she is sometimes arrested and often harassed on his or her return
There are many excellent scholars who are stymied and effectively shut up, because they can not stand the heat, the very real personal and professional implications they must overcome are staggering... if they dare to argue against the dominate paradigms. This vitiated atmosphere is destructive. But that is what there is.... a huge self-hate campaign... particularly in the English press, which may ultimately backfire. But at least in the short term, it allows for very little discourse --with battle lines drawn but no chance for debate, no areas of convergence where the defenders and aggressors (whomever they are) can even agree to disagree.