Hinduwebsite Editorial - Confusion Over Indian History
There are many confusions about Indian history. Until India became independent, Indian history vacillated between two extremes.
On the one side was the nationalist version of a golden era ruled by kings of great valor and virtue who were patriotic and religious to the core and who fought against foreign aggressors such as Alexander and Aurangzeb.
On the other side was the European version of a pagan culture that had its roots in the ancient cults of Indo-European communities who lived and ruled as if the earth belonged to them and their kind.
The first approach attempted to inculcate feelings of nationalism and nationalist pride in a rather submissive and apathetic community that was deeply divided on a caste and regional basis and paid no attention to the vacuum of leadership.
The second approach attempted to legitimize the aggressor's historic connection with the region and thereby their right to rule the country as the modern successors to an ancient and lost civilization and their right to superior knowledge, culture, and wisdom.
Lost in this epic drama was an era of about a thousand years of unpleasant history that was soaked in violence, persecution, and religious discrimination against a vast number of innocent people by a succession of unrelenting and cruel invaders who excelled in plunder and pillage and showed scant respect for humanity.
When India became independent, an elite group of historians bred on the ideology of the far left began articulating their version of Indian history from sociological, anthropological, and cultural perspectives. They injected a fresh dose of neo-Marxist, socialist, and communist interpretations into their narratives to portray Indian history as the history of tribal, feudal, and economically marginalized communities, presenting them as victims of class struggle, agrarian conflicts, and exploitation by wealthy and powerful land-owning communities in the name of religious authority and hereditary rights.
To the extent possible, they attempted to separate Indian history from its religious history and interpret its past with a secular mindset, glossing over the rather unpleasant facts of history in generalizations and rationalizations. What was lost or compromised in the process was the truth of India's ancient past and true glory. India was the hub of social and oriental wisdom, culture, philosophy, and history, which was seldom brought to light for the world to know.
The history of India is not the history of a nation but the history of various groups of people who lived in the Indian subcontinent and practiced diverse religious beliefs, ranging from the highest to the lowest and the vilest. Presently, they belong to different nations, nationalities, and religious groups, comprising present-day India, Nepal, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Burma, Sri Lanka, Afghanistan, and parts of China, Russia, and Iran. They also belong to different linguistic and cultural groups, some very Indian, some partially Indian, and some very foreign.
There is a section of people who want us to believe that the ancient people who lived in the Indian subcontinent have the same national identity as the people of modern India, and perpetuate the nationalist fervor that we should feel a deep emotional connection with those who lived in the subcontinent centuries ago. Unfortunately, this is not true. If those people come back to life, they would hardly recognize the modern Indians and vice versa. Even their languages were different.
Another noticeable factor regarding Indian history is the amount of hostility shown by some Indians towards the European historians of the British period. These historians were pioneers in the study of ancient India. Before them, no one evinced as much interest in the history of the land as they did. Without their contribution and dedicated work, probably Indian history would have been practically nonexistent until the past century.
They might have had their own flaws and religious prejudices, but they did introduce India to the Western world, unlike any group of Indians ever did. Few Indians like Raja Rammohan Roy studied the ancient texts and tried to explore India’s rich cultural past and dynamic traditions. However, their biographies suggest that they suffered hardships for choosing unrewarding careers.
Until the European historians arrived on the scene, Indians showed little interest in exploring or preserving historical records or ancient scriptures. In fact, the Indian elite of British times were inimical to the idea of revealing the religious texts to all classes of people, especially the Sudras.
It is approximately the same situation today. In India, religious scholars and intellectuals receive little attention from the public. Few pay attention to the preservation work they do. Caste divisions prevail, and some overenthusiastic groups want to rewrite and glorify Indian history rather than understand the truth and learn from it.
Here are a few facts regarding ancient India. They may be controversial in nature and may even be wrong in some contexts. I chose to present them because I feel we must challenge ourselves and our prejudices to cultivate tolerance, discretion, right thinking, right knowledge, and right views.
1. Fact: Since ancient times, the Indian subcontinent has been inhabited by diverse groups of people. They were not Indians in the same sense as the people of modern India.
Explanation: They lived in a different world. They were bound by their family traditions and lineages rather than their national identities. Some of them led pastoral and nomadic lives and wandered from place to place. This group includes not only Yajnavalkya and great rishis but also the Chandalas, Lokayatas, and other outcastes whom the higher castes despised. So, when you put all the ancient people who lived in the subcontinent into one basket and identify yourself with them, you have to remember that they were diverse groups of people who belonged to different social and historical backgrounds.
2. Fact: The Indian subcontinent was probably inhabited by a group of Aryans at some point in its long history.
Explanation: The word Arya and its variants, such as Ayya, are frequently used in India even today across many cultures. The scriptures call the subcontinent Aryavarta, or the land of the Aryans. Aryaputra was a common epithet. In Sanskrit and Telugu, the lawful wife is generally known as "bhaarya," meaning the one who gives birth to an Arya. However, we do not know whether these Aryans were white, black, brown, or mixed, and whether they were original inhabitants or came from outside. The consensus is that the word Arya in ancient India and until recent times denoted social status rather than a race.
3. Fact: Geographically, a vast part of the Indus Valley civilization is located in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and forms part of their local histories as much as it forms part of Indian history. So is the case with the Buddha, who was born in present-day Nepal rather than India.
Explanation: The Indus Valley civilization covered a very large area, larger than the ancient Egyptian kingdom. Unfortunately, we have no clear information about this civilization. The subcontinent also witnessed the rise of many tribal groups, republics, and communities who were outside the pale of mainstream culture for a very long time. The Buddha belonged to one such community. In the Vedic worldview, the Buddha was a heretic born to mislead people and lead them astray as part of God's plan to destroy the asuras.
4. Fact: The people who practiced the Vedic religion were not Indians in the same sense as the modern Indians.
Explanation: Vedic civilization passed through many phases of development. They lived in an entirely different time, worshipped different gods, and followed a different religious, social, and economic system that has little resemblance to the prevailing one.
5. Fact: The religion of the Rigveda is no longer practiced in India.
Explanation: The Vedic gods, such as Indra, Varuna, Agni, Mitra, Usha, Aditya, Soma, Pusan, Maruts, Rudras, Vasus, Visvadevas, Asvins, and Prajapati, are demoted to a lower level in the pantheon and replaced by a new set of gods. Hindus chant the names of the early Vedic deities in rituals and sacrifices, but do not give them much importance in daily worship or devotional prayers compared to deities like Ganesa, Venkatesa, or Hanuman, or even modern gurus like Shirdi Sai Baba.
6. Fact: Hinduism is an idea or a concept, but not an actual religion in the sense of Christianity or Islam. Hence, it does not have the same continuity or historical identity as in the case of these religions.
Explanation: Brahmanism, Shaivism, Vaishnavism, Shaktism, and several ascetic traditions have their own independent histories. They had their own pantheon, code of conduct, teacher traditions, scriptures, philosophies, rituals, and practices. At times, intense rivalries existed between these sectarian groups. They do have several common features and a deep cultural and spiritual affinity with Vedism, which made them to be associated and identified with Hinduism as its sectarian traditions. Popular Hinduism, which is practiced by the majority of Hindus, accepts them as integral to Hinduism without distinctions.
7. Fact: Present-day Hinduism has little resemblance to the religious traditions practiced in ancient India, except perhaps with regard to the caste system, treatment of women and the poor, and a few temple traditions.
Explanation: Whether it is meat-eating, human and animal sacrifices, polygamy, widow burning, gender discrimination, ban on overseas travel, untouchability, joint family system, purdah system, or methods of worship, modern Hinduism is very different from the traditions and beliefs practiced in ancient India.
To be correct and noncontroversial, people may create their own versions of history according to modern values and mindsets and indulge in a romanticized version of the faith, but through that process, one will not arrive at the truth of their history or a correct understanding of the faith they practice. We must distinguish primitive Hinduism from today's Hinduism so that we can accept the reality without illusions and distorted narratives.
Today, many people in India are scared of writing or speaking about India's past or making movies about historical events and people, because they do not want to invite controversy and a threat to their lives. This must change. If we take pride in the Upanishadic statement, "Satyameva Jayate," we should let truth speak for itself and allow freedom of thought and churning of ideas to distill truth.
A Hindu who believes in rebirth ought to be free from these prejudices because there is no guarantee that we are always born in the same religious community. What we defend and uphold in this life, we may castigate and condemn in our next birth. If you persecute someone now, you may be born into the family of the persecuted and suffer from the consequences of your own actions. These do not necessarily happen in everyone's case, but one cannot rule out their possibility.
Hindus must take pride in the fact that Hinduism was founded by generations of extraordinary humans with inspired knowledge and wisdom that can be traced back to God Himself or a superior intelligence beyond human reach. It is not bound by dogma, which means it can easily adapt to changing circumstances and our growing spiritual needs and awareness.