By: Shankar Sharan
March 11, 2005
Indian History, Destruction of Hinduism and the Truth about Marxists
CPI(M) and Karl Marx
ASI and planned death of history
"Ramakrishna deranged”....Reject this History
Is Sikhism destined for dustbin of history?
Mr. Singh, Don?t Play With The History
Book review: Marxism & Indian History
India?s Vedic History / Holocaust Museum
Letter to Washington Post on Indian History
"Rescuing India"s Hijacked History"
History of VANDE MATARAM Sadhu
Prof. V. Rangarajan
Book review: “Marxism and the writing of Indian history”
Book is in Hindi, published by India First Foundation, New Delhi 110001
Author: Shankar Sharan
Following is the gist of this book sent by the author:
1. The Problem - Indian sense of history has been different. No
tradition of having historical records and narrations. Hence no authentic
details of kingdoms, periods, events etc. This situation have been
exploited by Islamic, Christian Missionary, Imperialist and Marxist
scholars alike. That is, they all felt free to present Indian history as
they wished, with no great fear of being contradicted by authentic
historical accounts of yore.
2. Marxist theory of History-writing - General principles of
Marxist history writing. Samples of Soviet, Chinese and Indian varieties.
They all have some common traits deriving from the Marxist view of
history. The materialist interpretation of history and what it entailed in
practice for Marxist historians everywhere. That is: a superstitious, a
priori belief in the ‘scientific’ value of Marxist theory, emphasis on
class struggle, mode of production, base and superstructure, economic
first and fundamental, party-mindedness, falsification, exaggeration,
concealment, propaganda and political activism, etc.
3. Karl Marx’s view on India and Indian history - Marx’s view of
India, on Indian history, on Islamic rule, Hindu character, British role.
His unalloyed contempt for Hinduism and the self-sufficient village
society of India, because it were a hurdle for the socialist and
ultimately world revolution. Most of the Marx’s views on Indian history
have been ignored (or carefully concealed) by the Indian Marxist
historians for the sole reason of being politically incorrect.
4. Romila Thapar and the image of India - How she has distorted the
image of ancient India out of ignorance or/and her leftist, anti-Hindu
political conviction. Her propounded Theory that ‘Hindu kings too
destroyed temples, it was indeed no less than a tradition, and Islamic
rulers later only followed them’ is a case in point. Study shows that she
never investigated the issue, but propagated it with full vigour all the
same. Other Marxists in India and historians, scholars abroad repeated it
with confidence due to her signature under the theory. But, it is
established that she NEVER studied the issue and repeated it because of
political expediency. Such an attitude distorted India’s image, especially
the Hindu past, because of Thapar’s great stature in academia, with big
and foreign publishers, etc. Everybody simply believed her, even though
she was propagating a politically useful concoction.
5. Alignment for falsification of Indian history – How the Congress
leadership in post-independent India tried to ‘shape’ medieval India
history according to their political line. The tendency to whitewash
unpleasant facts and episodes emerged in early 1920s. However, after
independence it was sought to be enforced in all history writing among the
historians with the help of state power – pressure, reprimand,
black-listing of uncompromising historians (like R C Mazumdar) etc. Since
early 1960s a new breed of Marxist historians saw the opportunity and
quickly aligned with the Congress leadership for the purpose. A mutually
beneficial political-academic alignment that continues till date. In the
process history related scholarship has become the casualty all along.
6. Self-appointed experts of communalism – It is note-worthy that
the Marxist historians have become the foremost, nay, the only experts of
‘communalism’. Though it is a political problem, the Marxist historians
usurped the subject for reasons political. For the subject is directly
related to the historical experience of the Muslims rulers of India in the
12-18th century. Falsifying that experience is somehow felt to be
essential for the Marxist history writing in this country. Which is why
they do not let the issue even defined and deliberately keep it vague, as
Bipan Chandra did so stubbornly. To use it according to exigencies. Nor
they let others define or analyse the subject and cry ‘communal’ whenever
someone tried to put communalism in perspective.
7. Indecent style in polemics – Whosoever criticizes the
propositions, narrations etc of the Marxist historians always gets a very
insulting rebuke by them. It is a rule. Whether a scholar, analyst,
journalist or a great historian himself - every critic of Marxist
historians is branded negatively and severely abused by them. Thus our
Marxist historians never allow genuine debate on any issue, but try to
stifle it by name-calling, distortion and political deflection etc. Fear
for being exposed? Or just a Marxist trait to abuse a critic, but the fact
is that in polemics the Marxist historians are generally uncivil.
8. Islamic crimes on Brahmins’ account - In white washing various
deeds of the medieval Islamic rulers the Marxist historians have tried so
many techniques. One of them is to blame Hindu society, especially the
Brahmins, for some infamous acts of the past. For instance, the
destructions of Buddhist and Jain temples are frequently put on the
account of Hindus, without, of course, a shred of evidence. Killing
several birds by one: concealing Islamic record of brutal iconoclasm;
demonstrating the Hindu ‘intolerance’ instead; creating rift between
Hindus and Buddhists, Jains on the one hand; and within Hindus on the
bases of caste differences, etc on the other. It is all very helpful to
left-wing politicking at present.
9. Marxist intervention on Ayodhya - The Marxist historians
intervention in the Ayodhya dispute in 1989 was an act of pure political
activism. The entire episode, still continuing, demonstrated that the
eminent historians are political activists first, then anything else.
Their intervention began in the ruse of presenting ‘the historical
evidence’ regarding the dispute. It soon became clear that they were
astonishingly poor on the very historical evidence. They wrote a
highfalutin pamphlet with the signature of 25 historians, and the official
publisher being the Centre for Historical Studies, JNU. But as soon as the
pamphlet was examined by knowledgeable individuals the very historians
became champions of secularist politics saying ‘evidence or no evidence’.
That their home work was so poor speaks volumes of the quality of their
scholarship. Besides, they botched up the entire issue, encouraged the
Muslim side to become uncompromising and vitiated the socio-political
atmosphere by their childish political adventurism, and later, escapism. A
good specimen of the worth of their eminences.
10. Enmity with Hinduism – In their writings, speeches and activism
a distinct streak of anti-Hindu attitude is always discernible. Whence it
comes from may be varied, but the fact remains that most of the Marxist
historians do not even conceal their hatred for Hindu tradition, deities,
ethos, etc. Their contempt of everything Hindu is apparent in their work.
In some cases it is their only guide to explain or explain away things.
May be it is just in line with the left-wing politics than anything else.
Send your views to author
Do you wish to reach IndiaCause readers?
Write @ IndiaCause
Copyright and Disclaimer:
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and not that of
IndiaCause.com's. The author is solely responsible for the contents of
this article. IndiaCause does not represent or endorse the accuracy,
completeness or reliability of any opinion, statement, appeal, advice or
any other information in the article. Our readers are free to forward this
page URL to anyone. This column may NOT be transmitted or distributed by
others in any manner whatsoever (other than forwarding or weblisting page
URL) without the prior permission from
IndiaCause and the Author.