|
By K. V. Ramakrishna Rao B.sc.,
M.A., A.M.I.E., C.Eng(I)., B.L.,
Introduction
Distortion connotes
contortion, deformity, malformation,
mutilation, twisting,
losing shape and so on. Here, how, why and what for such
distortion has taken place in historical writings on Indian
history in interpreting historical processes and happenings in
historical context has to be critically analyzed. The very word
distortion and its shades of meanings and
connected expressions prove that such actions could have taken
place directly and indirectly, with or without motive,
internally and externally because of thousands of years of time
and people involved.
As historiography is closely connected with the available
archaeological evidences, defacement of such evidences occur on
similar lines, which includes damage, vandalism, destruction,
injury and impairment. The same process could occur to the
historical documents also. Above all, as human beings are
involved in such processes, their likes, dislikes, motives,
urges, drives, ambitions, impulses, passion etc., are mixed
coloring the historiography. Thus, in Indian context, the
distortions could be due to the following factors:
1. The time.
2. Loss of records and
archaeological evidences.
3. Rule by the aliens, which
had been politically and religiously motivated.
4. Historiography handled by
the engaged professional and non-professional groups.
5. Quick and hasty chronology
decided and fixed.
Coming to the question of “Indian History”,
many times “India” of 3000 BCE is interpreted
thinking “India” of 300 CE, 2000 BCE as 2000 CE and so on.
Reflecting present on the past is an historical
idiosyncrasy without understanding the historical
factors involved behind each period. Many times, even great
historians and scholars write that people have been like this
today and therefore, they must have been there like that in 3000
BCE also. The climatic, meteorological, geological,
geographical, political and other factors are totally ignored.
As for as “history” is concerned, there has
been an attitude developed and established that “we are only
historians and other not”. Are all history teachers, lecturers
and professors are “historians’? Definitely, not.
The definition of history changes according to modern times. The
ideological interpretation of historical processes have been
another feature of Indian historiography, which created bias and
prejudice with pre-conceived notions, hypotheses and theories
leading to distortions.
The Time
The time involved in Indian history
has been enormous perplexing modern historians, but it is not
the fault of India or its time but that of the modern
historians, as they could not perceive, conceive and comprehend
such processes involved. As scientific studies day by day
reveals the antiquity of man and its activities on the earth,
the existence of the earth and other planets for million of
years, the “historical perspective” of “history”
of “modern historian“ living in different time and
place, is limited, restricted and curtailed and thus censored
also.
The Itihasas (Ramayana and Mahabharat) and Puranas (the
original 18 Puranas compiled by Vyasa or attributed to Vyasa)
have been the Indian historical records. There have been
hundreds of specific references about the description of the
world with continents, oceans, mountains, rivers etc., recorded
in the Itihasas and Puranas, though they appear to be
non-scientific for the modern minds, but they have been
scientific containing scientific data and information. The
modern minds may think them as myth, fables or even bundle lies,
because of the orchestrated propaganda made about them. If the
same yardstick is applied to the so called Greek historical
records, they are more myth, fables and bundle of lies, as has
been vouchsafed by the Greeks and western scholars themselves.
Therefore, the data and information found in Itihasas and
Puranas need not be doubted. If a researcher works with open
mind, he can easily find out the truth.
Indian historical records, though, modern scholars do not
accept them 100% historical (and of course, no historical record
is 100% historical, which is known historical fact) have
recorded such a lengthy human history. One specific example is
discussed here. Valmiki has mentioned about three-tuskered
elephants, different horses etc. How Valmiki could have seen or
at least imaginatively visualized or otherwise the millions of
years old creatures? The issue is discussed as follows.
Valmiki a Liar or Imposter or Forger?
Valmiki’s
date itself has been put into dispute. The historian and other
scholars vouchsafe that he was writing Ramayana after the
introduction of script and the techniques of poetry into India
upto 400 CE or 7th century CE and so on.
Interestingly, Valmiki or the poet who wrote Ramayana mentions
about certain fantastic, strange and mysterious creatures and
animals in his work. The details are as follows:
1. The grand palace of Ravana
was protected by many strange animals.
2. Certain characteristic
horses were sneighing.
3. There were many elephants
and they had four tusks.
4. Protected fat animals and
birds were also there.
5. The palace was protected by
four tusked elephants and as well as three tusked animals.
However, three tusked animals are not named.
The first four depictions are in Sundarakanda
(4.25-30) and the fifth one also in Sundarakanda (9.5) of
Valmiki Ramayana. A Jurassic Park in Ramayana indeed! Can
Valmiki be dubbed a liar or Steven Speilsburg has copied the
idea from Valmiki or directly from Ravana? Or Valmiki copied
these details from the modern book of science living in 20th
century? He resurrected and came to forge or interpolate to
please the western writers? Or some wicked and history-senseless
Brahmins interpolated just to appear just like that to claim
antiquity? All concerned scholars have to answer honestly.
According to modern scientists, the big elephants with big
jaws and small teeth are called Tetrabeloton and
others Dyanothiayar, which lived about 13 to 135
million YBP. The elephants with big ears and lengthy and bent
tusks lived about 63 to 135 million YBP during cretaceous
period. The elephants with dense hair, bent tusks lived about a
million YBP during Pleistocene period. These type of animals
have been depicted on the horns of deer known as Arknecian.
As the men who drew such pictures on the horns lived before
12,000 years and scholars accept that they must have seen and
drawn, definitely, Valmiki, the poet or the writer who wrote
Ramayana with such description must have lived during the period
to see and describe. As Indian archaeologists and historians
argue that the poet or writer of Ramayana must have seen the
later day monuments, buildings and sculpture to incorporate such
descriptions, he must have seen the animals of such 65 to 135
million YBP and described in his Ramayana. Incidentally, this
period comes to Tretayuga, where, the bridge has
also been dated now as man-made.
Paleantology, archaeology and connected fields and subjects
have been perceived, conceived, evolved and developed only
during the last 50 to 150 years. Then, the dating methodology
has been put into practice to date the samples on relative /
prepared scale. But, as Valmiki or the poet has given such
details, they cannot be brushed aside as myth. The date of
Valmiki or his work also cannot be underestimated without going
into the details. That whoever may be could depict such details
in his poem definitely puts him at the period of 12,000 when the
cavemen drew on the deer horns. Or at the worst, he must have
known the details 2000 to 5000 YBP. How, that, he could get such
knowledge? Without taking this type of important evidences,
scholars should not and could not come to some hasty
conclusions.
The same situation could be noted in the case of the “Three
Tamil Sangams”. The Tamil tradition has been very
consistent about the existence of such academies of poets, who
were patronized b the Pandyan Kings, but modern historical mind
refuses to accept such narrative evidences without material
evidences.
Rama’s Bridge
The NASA photo of the “man-made
bridge” connecting Rameswaram and Sri Lanka with the
note that it was built about 17,50,000 YBP published recently in
newspapers is not new one many think. Similar photo was
published in 1993 itself (Indian Express March 25, 1993) with a
report under the caption ‘Rama’s bridge on NASA photo’ (Indian
Express, March 24, 1993). In fact, the report was based on two
photographs displayed at the Pragati Maidan, New Delhi at that
time one that of NASA taken September 14, 1966 displayed with
the caption “the mythological land bridge between India
and Sri Lanka through Rameswaram and Jaffna” and the
other one taken by IRS-IA and enlarged read “Computer-altered
image shows the mytrhological land bridge between India and Sri
Lanka through Rameswaram and Jaffna”. Therefore, it is
evident that after 36 years, USA or the persons behind have
decided to change “the mythological land bridge between
India and Sri Lanka through Rameswaram and Jaffna” to “man-made
bridge” implying that Ramayana period is not 5 millenium
BCE, but perhaps goes back to Tretayuga (17,28,000 YBP), as has
been held by the Puranas.
Anyway, now, it has to be decided historically with the
astronomical methods. The date of Sri Rama has been determined
based on astronomical, literary and other evidences.
Astronomical methods invariably fix the date of Sri Rama between
4430-4330 BCE period. Western scholars differ in their methods.
Even in the method of literary evidence, they put Ramayana after
Mahabharat and tried to arrive at date based on the date of
compilation, editing and writing of manuscripts. Such
methodology has to be scrutinized critically and thoroughly.
These details are given, because the dating is connected
with the animals mentioned above. The Tretayuga dating matches
with the geological datings of the modern scientists. As Valmiki
describes such animals, can we imagine that Valmilki existed
17,50,000 YBP to see them and record in his Ramayana? Historians
have to decide.
Loss of records and archaeological evidences
This is quite possible considering the time involved in Indian
history as pointed out above. Besides the Islamic iconoclastic
destruction and the Christian vandalism with the blessings of
the invaders or settled rulers, there had been systematic
looting, smuggling and impairment of records and archaeological
evidences. Otherwise, the foreign museums could not have more
Indian archaeological evidences than the Indian museums have
now. There had been planned taking away of manuscripts, palm
leaves, books, charts, diagrams, drawings, paintings,
instruments etc., by the engaged scholars, missionaries and
official “exporters” of East Indian Company, that is why the
foreign archives have more collection of such historical
documents that that of Indian counterparts.
In the case of Muslim interaction with such period, during
Abbasid period many scholars and books were imported into Arabia
for translating and writing in books in Arabic from Sanskrit.
Later, straight away, the Sanskrit books were translated and
written in Arabic without acknowledging the Sanskrit or Indian
sources. . In fact, most of the Indian source materials had been
made to disappear or irrecoverably lost. Many thousands of
astronomical and mathematical tables were lost in such
interactions. The fate of hundreds and perhaps thousands of
scholars exported or went there is not known. Whether they
returned to India, were killed as the rulers did not want the
knowledge to spread to others, run away fearing the persecution,
disappeared hiding their identity or converted to Islam for
various reasons. Incidentally, Sufi movement appears in the
Middle East after that time only.
Indus Valley Civilization, Bahrut, Udayagiri, Hathighumpa
evidences prove how the time could have played a havoc in the
slow destruction i.e, erosion of the archaeological evidences.
Illegal excavation, smuggling and stealing away of already
excavated sites have been the feature of IVC, now situated in
Pakistan. The Talibanized groups have already given instructions
to erase all the acts and signs of Satan i.e, to destroy all the
figures, idols and such things. Or sell them to the antique
Collectors, get money and invest for Jihad and of course, it is
faithfully done. The Udayagiri art and sculpture resemble
Bahrut, that is why the modern scholars themselves accept that
they belong to 200 BCE. But, definitely, they are before Bahrut,
because, the natural erosion and withering away of the
sculptured stone has been more and clearly visible even now. If
anybody goes through the Research Journals about the discussion
on these monuments, it can be noted that some of them take them
to pre-Asokan period and some others bring back to 2nd
and 1st centuries, as no evidence could go beyond
Asoka, Mauryan the period!
The Hatighumpa – Kharavela inscription too has been a matter
of controversial reading and interpretation, as it has been
mutilated by nature itself, because of time. Scholars place
Kharavela from 400 BCE to 100 BCE. Incidentally, Kharavela talks
about the existence of a confederacy of Tamil Kingdoms existed
1300 years before him i.e, in 1700 BCE or 1400 BCE. But, the
modern scholars keep silence or cut down the chronology to 300
years. Kharavela has lied or the modern scholars are too smart?
Rule by the aliens, which had been politically and
religiously motivated
The British divided the “Indian
history” into Ancient, Medieval and modern periods. Later it was
changed to Hindu, Mohammedan and British periods. Indians were
divided into “Aryan” and “Dravidian” races. The “Mohammedan” or
Muslim rulers too have adapted and adopted such bias and
prejudice in their own way i.e, the Islamic way. “Indian History
as Told by Indian Historians” reveal such tendencies.
Dealing with this type of topics might be dubbed as
“communal” and so on, but it is an undeniable bitter truth that
the Muslims and Christians have destroyed many temples, idols,
sculptures and artistic evidences, because they have against
their scriptures. If one analyze critically the psychology of
Iconoclasm and Iconogenesis, the truth would be revealed. Very
often, scholars, particularly the so called art historians and
experts discuss about the wonderful artistic skills of some
rulers, dynasties and people group, who themselves happen
to be the destroyers of artistic sculptures, artifacts,
monuments and temples. How an iconoclast could produce icons?
This tendency should be carefully noted in historiography.
Historiography handled by the engaged professional and
non-professional groups
The present Indian history has
been written by the British administrators with the main
qualification that they knew and write what they want in English
well. However, their efforts and steadfastness are not under
estimated or denigrated, but only the motive behind is
questioned in the historiographical context. Even today there
have been hundreds of politicians in India and people know their
background and case history. Still, some of them claim that
during their reign only many temples were renovated, temple cars
run, and so on censuring Hindu tradition, heritage, culture day
in and day out. Similar type of interpretation is given to
rulers like Aurangazeb, Tipu Sultan and others that they have
given grants to build temples or destroyed temples because the
Hindus were doing nonsense there. However, the do not explain
why they did not do the same to the mosques. In fact, mosques
had been only built at the sites where the destroyed temples
stood.
Quick and hasty chronology decided and fixed
The dates in Indian history have been arrived at within a short
period of time based on the following methodology:
1. Fixing the Alexander’s
invasion as the reference dateline i.e, 326 BCE (sheet anchor of
Indian history)
2. Considering every historical
happening before that as pre-history or unhistorical (thus
thousands of Indian history has been simply dubbed as myth).
3. Reading, interpreting and
fixing different dates of various Kings and dynasties
arbitrarily without any independent datings.
4. Dubbing the inconvenient
Kings and others as myth (Vikramaditya), ignoring them
altogether or sidetracking by glorifying some Kings as Emperors
and “The Great” (Asoka, though he conquered only few parts of
India, but Kharavela conquered most of the parts of India).
5. Compressing all such rulers
and dynasties within 200 / 300 / 400 years and placing them
after 326 BCE (all Indian astronomers – Aryabhata, Bhaskara,
Lalla, Varaha Mihira, etc are made to crowd around 500 CE).
6. Sloganization of historical
personalities, events and places – Kautilya is the Indian
Machaeveli, Chandragupta is Indian Napolean, Gupta period is
“Golden Era”, the “Nine Gems” (though the so called “Nine Gems”
belong to different periods and their dates are not determined
coclusiuvely), etc.
7. Taking Puranas as source for
getting the names of Kings, Kingdoms, boundaries, dynasties and
their exploits at one side, but condemning, blaspheming and
disparaging them as myth, forgeries and so on at the other end.
8. The inscriptional dates have
not been deciphered independently but relatively. The Regnal
Years mentioned in Kharavela, Asokan, Gupta and other
inscriptions have been fixed relatively. Many times, though, 500
BCE / 400 BCE were obtained in their calculations, they were
ignored as they went beyond 326 BCE mark!
9. The Monuments have not been
dated scientifically but based on styles and some generalized
artistic features.
10. As the IVC has been dated to 3500-2500 BCE, wedge has
been created in interpreting the script as Aryan or Dravidian,
Sanskrit or Tamil and so on.
John Faithful Fleet, the only person who has been responsible
for fixing certain dates, which have been the datum for fixing
other dates, has been unfortunately more faithful to his country
than to India. No doubt, he has rummaged through the fleet of
inscriptions faithfully, but it had been only johnnycake to the
British. He was Johnny-come-lately in fixing the dates
unilaterally and relatively without considering other evidences.
Conclusion
As distortions in Indian history
have been due to different factors, only the factors related to
human agencies appear to pose great threat to objective
historiography in presenting the facts to the public instead of
tainted with ideology and so on. First, let the facts be known
the public and let them decide. Without placing the facts to
them, but go on interpreting the facts according to their
ability of interpretation do not justify such exercise. As now
print and electronic media is open, the facts could be presented
to the general public easily so that they could understand the
truth behind the facts.
A. List of manuscripts, charts,
diagrams etc., taken
B. List of manuscripts, books etc.,
destroyed.
C. Instances of archaeological evidences
destroyed.
D. Instances of archaeological evidences
smuggled out of India.
Notes and Refeences
1. Nabin Kumar Sahu, Kharavela, Orissa State Museum, Bhubaneswar,
1984.
2. Jaina Chhotelal,
Khandagiri-Udayagiri Caves and Kharavela Inscriptions (2nd
Century B.C), Calcutta, 1948.
3. Sasikanta, The
Hathigumpha Inscription of Kharavela and Bhabru Edict of Asoka,
A Critical Study, New Delhi, 1971.
4. S. Iyer, The
Hathigumpha cave Inscriptions of Kharavela, Indian
Antiquary, Vol.XLIX (1920), pp.43-52.
5. A. Chand, Date of
Kharavela, Journal and Proceedings of Royal Asiatic
Society (1923), p.395.
…………., Date of Kharavela, Orissa
Historical Research Journal, Vol.III, No.2, pp.84-99.
6. K. P. Jayswal,
Hathigumpha Inscription of the Emperor Kharavela (173 B.C to 160
B.C), Journal of the Bihar and Orissa Research
Society, Vol.III (1917), pp.425-473.
7. R. Mukherji,
Kharavela and Tramira Daha, Journal of Asiatic
Society of Bengal., letters, Vol.VII, Nos.3-4 (1965),
pp.129-131.
8. K. A. Nilakanta Sastri, The Colas, University of Madras, Madras, 1984,
pp.30-31, 35-36.
T. V. Sadasiva Pandarattar, Pirkala
Chola carittiram (Tamil), Annamalai University,
Chidambaram, Part – I (1954) and Part – II (1957).
9. K. V. Ramakrishna Rao, Kharavela and Karikala, a paper submitted to
the XXIIIrd session of South Indian Congress
to be held at Tiruchirappalli from January 31 to February 2,
2003 (included in the Abstract Volume).
Suggested Further Reading
|
