We have got some extracts in Newspapers through articles. I reproduce part of an article by Swapan Dasgupta, an intellectual journalist. But we cannot depend on the opinions of experts and intellectuals of Indian variety without our own independent verification, especially as what Swapan Dasgupt has revealed exposes the dishonesty or blind faith of so-called intellectuals who even give opinions of doubtful value as expert knowledge-based opinion.
I had always doubted much of Indian intellectualism, especially of the leftist or communist variety as slogans to sell faith to gullible public.
That the Communist (or, communist dependent) Intellectuals' thoughts and behaviour are generally of poor and unscientific quality and dishonesty is all well known. And, this is understandable: just like many preachers/ priest of religion they are in the business of making money and acquiring power by selling blind faith. The standards of logic and science among Indian historians has generally been poor because they have difficulty in living with refutable theories: they have to behave as if they know the Truth of everything: otherwise their credibility will be lost among common people they want to exploit. Seldom will you see communist intellectuals in academic debates and academic journals on international repute.
Swapan Dasgupt is right that for once they have been exposed because the communists thought they are better intellectuals than the judges who daily practices reason and logic to examine evidence of various types arrive at Truth. From the very beginning it was clear that the anti-Ramjanmabhoomi lobby will fail at the cross examinations at the Court. Even for a widely held belief, it is necessary to produce in Court evidence that establishes that no Ram ever existed or that the particular Ram was not born in the land under the Babri Masjid complex. The communists did not understand that the Judges could not have said that Ramjanmabhumi was not Ram's birthplace unless there was historical proof that Ram did not exist or he was born elsewhere. It was not sufficient for the judges to consider the mere absence of historical proof about Ram's Existence or his birthplace as proof of non-existence of Ram and of birth of Ram outside Ramjanmabhumi. The art of fooling common people is not be confused with science, logic or reason. Noe lwt me quote from Swapan's article at http://www.telegraphindia.com/1101015/jsp/opinion/story_13057334.jsp#
IMAGINED HISTORIES
- The court watched a parade of the good, the bad and the ugly
Swapan Dasgupta, The Telegraph, Kolkata, Oct. 15, 2010
When the history of the Ayodhya movement comes to be written, there will be the inevitable search for heroes and villains. The selection will be contentious: one man’s hero is, after all, another man’s villain. At this interim stage, when the Allahabad High Court verdict has opened a small window of opportunity for an amicable settlement that leaves no side completely dissatisfied, it would help to examine how the beauty parade of the good, the bad and the ugly has been viewed from the Bench.
An exploration of the voluminous judgment of the judge, Sudhir Agarwal, is pertinent in the context of a determined bid by India’s vocal left-wing intelligentsia to rubbish the judgment as a departure from modernity, constitutionalism and the rule of law. In a statement by 61 ‘intellectuals’ led by the historian, Romila Thapar, that includes the cream of the left-liberal establishment and sundry art dealers, photographers and food critics, the judgment was attacked for dealing yet “another blow to India’s secular fabric”.
At the heart of the fury of the ‘intellectuals’ is the court’s assault on the reputation of the clutch of ‘eminent historians’ which has dictated the ‘secular’ discourse on the Ayodhya dispute. The court questioned the competence of various ‘expert’ witnesses and cast doubts on their intellectual integrity.
It was the Archaeological Survey of India report of court-monitored excavations in 2003 of the disputed site which set the cat among the pigeons. After exhaustive hearings of “all possible angles in the matter so that there may not remain a grievance”, the high court accepted the ASI report which R.C. Thakran of Delhi University, an expert witness for the Sunni Waqf Board, dubbed “an unprofessional document full of gross distortions, one-sided presentation of evidence, clear falsifications and motivated inferences”.
Thakran’s indignation was understandable. In its conclusion, the ASI submitted that “a massive structure with at least three structural phases and three successive attached with it” was located at the disputed 2.77 acres in Ayodhya. The scale of the buildings indicated that they were for “public” functions. “It was over the top of this construction during the early 16th century the disputed structure was constructed directly resting over it.”
Without mincing words, the ASI report had brushed aside the so-called Historians’ Report to the Nation authored by the professors R.S. Sharma, M. Athar Ali, D.N. Jha and Suraj Bhan released in May 1991. This document was a plea to the government of India “to include impartial historians in the process of forming judgment on historical facts”. As an example of this “impartial” history, it was argued that “the full blown legend of the destruction of a temple at the site of Rama’s birth and Sita ki Rasoi is as late as the 1850s. Since then what we get is merely the progressive reconstruction of imagined history based on faith”.
Subsequently, as more research pointed otherwise, the goalpost was quietly shifted. In her deposition as an expert for the Waqf Board, the Aligarh historian, Shireen Moosvi, suggested that “the legend of Ayodhya being the birthplace of Rama is found from the 17th century, prior to which there is no legend about Rama’s birthplace in medieval history”. However, during cross-examination, Moosvi also admitted: “It is correct that in Sikh literature there is a tradition that Guru Nanak had visited Ayodhya, had darshan of Ram janmasthan and had bathed in the River Saryu.”
A horrific misrepresentation was sought to be covered up without the slightest show of contrition.
A curious feature of the 1991 intervention, which emerged from Suraj Bhan’s cross-examination, was the disinclination of the “impartial historians” to undertake any field work. In his deposition, Bhan stated: “I gave this report in May. I might have gone to Ayodhya in February-March…. In my first deposition I may have stated that I had gone to the disputed site before June 1991 for the first time.”
Nor was Bhan the only armchair archaeologist. Echoing Moosvi, the medieval historian who felt that “to ascertain whether it is temple or mosque, it was not necessary to see the disputed site”, the professor, D. Mandal, another expert witness for the Waqf Board, admitted he wrote his Ayodhya: Archaeology After Demolition without even visiting Ayodhya and with an eye to the presidential reference to the Supreme Court. Mandal also admitted that “Whatsoever little knowledge I have of Babur is only that Babur was (a) ruler of the 16th century. Except for this I do not have any knowledge of Babur.” The judge, Agarwal, was sufficiently moved to say about Mandal that “the statements made by him in cross-examination show the shallowness of his knowledge on the subject”.Shallowness and superficiality are themes that recur. Bhan confessed that the grandly titled Report to the Nation was written under “pressure” in six weeks and “without going through the record of the excavation by B.B. Lal”.
The lapse would have put an undergraduate to shame but not the “impartial” historians. During her cross-examination, Suvira Jaiswal, another Waqf Board expert historian, confessed: “I have read nothing about Babri Mosque… Whatever knowledge I gained with respect to the disputed site was on the basis of newspapers or… from the report of historians.” Sushil Shrivastava, a “historian” whose bizarre book on Ayodhya secured favourable media publicity and is still cited approvingly by CPI(M)’s Sitaram Yechury, admitted he had “very little knowledge of history”, didn’t know Arabic, Persian, epigraphy or calligraphy and had got translations done by his father-in-law. The judge was stunned by his “dishonesty”.Once the ASI excavations confirmed that the Babri Masjid wasn’t built on virgin land, “impartial” history turned to imaginative history. It was suggested by Bhan that what lay beneath the mosque was an “Islamic structure of the Sultanate period”. Mandal went one better, suggesting that after the Gupta period “this archaeological site became desolate for a long time”. The reason: floods. Supriya Verma contested the “Hindu” character of recovered artefacts from the Kushan, Shunga and Gupta periods — something even Bhan and Mandal had admitted to. These, she said, “could well have been part of palaces, Buddhist structure, Jain structure, Islamic structure [sic]”. There were also suggestions, never proven or pressed, that the ASI had falsified and suppressed data.
The court was not amused. Dismissing the unsubstantiated allegations “we find on the contrary, pre-determined attitude of the witness (Suraj Bhan) against ASI which he has admitted. Even before submission of ASI report and its having been seen by the witness, he formed (an) opinion and expressed his views…” The judge, Agarwal, was “surprised to see in the zeal of helping… the parties in whose favour they were appearing, these witnesses went ahead… and wrote a totally new story” of a mosque under a mosque.
The judge was unaware of what constitutes “scientific” history in India. In her deposition as an expert in ancient history, Suvira Jaiswal made an important clarification: “I am giving statement on oath regarding Babri Mosque without any probe and not on the basis of my knowledge; rather I am giving the statement on the basis of my opinion.”
She was articulating the prevailing philosophy of history writing in contemporary India. The courts recoiled in horror at the “dearth of logical thinking” and the underlying cronyism behind the public stands of India’s “eminent” historians. ....End of Quote.
IMAGINED HISTORIES
- The court watched a parade of the good, the bad and the ugly
Swapan Dasgupta, The Telegraph, Kolkata, Oct. 15, 2010
When the history of the Ayodhya movement comes to be written, there will be the inevitable search for heroes and villains. The selection will be contentious: one man’s hero is, after all, another man’s villain. At this interim stage, when the Allahabad High Court verdict has opened a small window of opportunity for an amicable settlement that leaves no side completely dissatisfied, it would help to examine how the beauty parade of the good, the bad and the ugly has been viewed from the Bench.
An exploration of the voluminous judgment of the judge, Sudhir Agarwal, is pertinent in the context of a determined bid by India’s vocal left-wing intelligentsia to rubbish the judgment as a departure from modernity, constitutionalism and the rule of law. In a statement by 61 ‘intellectuals’ led by the historian, Romila Thapar, that includes the cream of the left-liberal establishment and sundry art dealers, photographers and food critics, the judgment was attacked for dealing yet “another blow to India’s secular fabric”.
At the heart of the fury of the ‘intellectuals’ is the court’s assault on the reputation of the clutch of ‘eminent historians’ which has dictated the ‘secular’ discourse on the Ayodhya dispute. The court questioned the competence of various ‘expert’ witnesses and cast doubts on their intellectual integrity.
It was the Archaeological Survey of India report of court-monitored excavations in 2003 of the disputed site which set the cat among the pigeons. After exhaustive hearings of “all possible angles in the matter so that there may not remain a grievance”, the high court accepted the ASI report which R.C. Thakran of Delhi University, an expert witness for the Sunni Waqf Board, dubbed “an unprofessional document full of gross distortions, one-sided presentation of evidence, clear falsifications and motivated inferences”.
Thakran’s indignation was understandable. In its conclusion, the ASI submitted that “a massive structure with at least three structural phases and three successive attached with it” was located at the disputed 2.77 acres in Ayodhya. The scale of the buildings indicated that they were for “public” functions. “It was over the top of this construction during the early 16th century the disputed structure was constructed directly resting over it.”
Without mincing words, the ASI report had brushed aside the so-called Historians’ Report to the Nation authored by the professors R.S. Sharma, M. Athar Ali, D.N. Jha and Suraj Bhan released in May 1991. This document was a plea to the government of India “to include impartial historians in the process of forming judgment on historical facts”. As an example of this “impartial” history, it was argued that “the full blown legend of the destruction of a temple at the site of Rama’s birth and Sita ki Rasoi is as late as the 1850s. Since then what we get is merely the progressive reconstruction of imagined history based on faith”.
Subsequently, as more research pointed otherwise, the goalpost was quietly shifted. In her deposition as an expert for the Waqf Board, the Aligarh historian, Shireen Moosvi, suggested that “the legend of Ayodhya being the birthplace of Rama is found from the 17th century, prior to which there is no legend about Rama’s birthplace in medieval history”. However, during cross-examination, Moosvi also admitted: “It is correct that in Sikh literature there is a tradition that Guru Nanak had visited Ayodhya, had darshan of Ram janmasthan and had bathed in the River Saryu.”
A horrific misrepresentation was sought to be covered up without the slightest show of contrition.
A curious feature of the 1991 intervention, which emerged from Suraj Bhan’s cross-examination, was the disinclination of the “impartial historians” to undertake any field work. In his deposition, Bhan stated: “I gave this report in May. I might have gone to Ayodhya in February-March…. In my first deposition I may have stated that I had gone to the disputed site before June 1991 for the first time.”
Nor was Bhan the only armchair archaeologist. Echoing Moosvi, the medieval historian who felt that “to ascertain whether it is temple or mosque, it was not necessary to see the disputed site”, the professor, D. Mandal, another expert witness for the Waqf Board, admitted he wrote his Ayodhya: Archaeology After Demolition without even visiting Ayodhya and with an eye to the presidential reference to the Supreme Court. Mandal also admitted that “Whatsoever little knowledge I have of Babur is only that Babur was (a) ruler of the 16th century. Except for this I do not have any knowledge of Babur.” The judge, Agarwal, was sufficiently moved to say about Mandal that “the statements made by him in cross-examination show the shallowness of his knowledge on the subject”.Shallowness and superficiality are themes that recur. Bhan confessed that the grandly titled Report to the Nation was written under “pressure” in six weeks and “without going through the record of the excavation by B.B. Lal”.
The lapse would have put an undergraduate to shame but not the “impartial” historians. During her cross-examination, Suvira Jaiswal, another Waqf Board expert historian, confessed: “I have read nothing about Babri Mosque… Whatever knowledge I gained with respect to the disputed site was on the basis of newspapers or… from the report of historians.” Sushil Shrivastava, a “historian” whose bizarre book on Ayodhya secured favourable media publicity and is still cited approvingly by CPI(M)’s Sitaram Yechury, admitted he had “very little knowledge of history”, didn’t know Arabic, Persian, epigraphy or calligraphy and had got translations done by his father-in-law. The judge was stunned by his “dishonesty”.Once the ASI excavations confirmed that the Babri Masjid wasn’t built on virgin land, “impartial” history turned to imaginative history. It was suggested by Bhan that what lay beneath the mosque was an “Islamic structure of the Sultanate period”. Mandal went one better, suggesting that after the Gupta period “this archaeological site became desolate for a long time”. The reason: floods. Supriya Verma contested the “Hindu” character of recovered artefacts from the Kushan, Shunga and Gupta periods — something even Bhan and Mandal had admitted to. These, she said, “could well have been part of palaces, Buddhist structure, Jain structure, Islamic structure [sic]”. There were also suggestions, never proven or pressed, that the ASI had falsified and suppressed data.
The court was not amused. Dismissing the unsubstantiated allegations “we find on the contrary, pre-determined attitude of the witness (Suraj Bhan) against ASI which he has admitted. Even before submission of ASI report and its having been seen by the witness, he formed (an) opinion and expressed his views…” The judge, Agarwal, was “surprised to see in the zeal of helping… the parties in whose favour they were appearing, these witnesses went ahead… and wrote a totally new story” of a mosque under a mosque.
The judge was unaware of what constitutes “scientific” history in India. In her deposition as an expert in ancient history, Suvira Jaiswal made an important clarification: “I am giving statement on oath regarding Babri Mosque without any probe and not on the basis of my knowledge; rather I am giving the statement on the basis of my opinion.”
She was articulating the prevailing philosophy of history writing in contemporary India. The courts recoiled in horror at the “dearth of logical thinking” and the underlying cronyism behind the public stands of India’s “eminent” historians. ....End of Quote.
I have received another article reference by email from friends. That speaks of the State / Government sponsored history. It is not merely the communist intellectuals who use their poor brains in history and logic to sell outdated ideologies to acquire money and power: it has become the practice of textbook writing money-making activity for poor-brained, dishonest intellectuals enjoying the patronage of the Rulers in lieu of promoting myths liked by the Rulers Better I quote now:
'The New Indian Express
A textbook case of howlers
Michel Danino
Express News Service
First Published : 18 Oct 2010 03:33:28 AM IST
As a nation, we often take pride in our history, yet in my decade-long
interactions with Indian students and teachers, I have rarely found any in
love with the discipline. Rather, comments like "I hate history" or "History
is so boring" sum up the general feeling. You are likely to share it if you
open the latest history textbook prescribed for Class VI in 2010-11 by the
Tamil Nadu government under its "common syllabus".
Let us begin with the Indus or Harappan civilization, Chapter 2. On a map,
an important Harappan site, Kalibangan, is shown inside Pakistan instead of
northern Rajasthan (has Pakistan encroached on Indian land?); another site,
Rupar, is placed right on the international border, while it is close to
Chandigarh. The text informs us that "Harappa in Sindhi means 'Buried
City'," even though Harappa is in Punjab, not Sindh, and its etymology is
unknown. Harappan cities were so sophisticated that they boasted "street
lights"-certainly a world first! Another gem: "The terracotta planks
discovered here were engraved with letters"-as a student of archaeology, I
confess my ignorance of what a "terracotta plank" might be; perhaps this is
a garbled reference to Dholavira's famous three-metre-long inscription,
consisting of crystalline material set in a long-vanished wooden board.
Curiously, Dholavira, one of the five largest Harappan cities, and the
second largest in India, figures nowhere. Apparently, our textbook writers
rarely believe in updating their knowledge.
Among the five reasons given for the decline of this civilization, the first
is nonsensical: "Wooden articles would have got destroyed by fire," as if
that could have finished a whole civilization. The second is sheer fancy:
"Rivalry because of the civil war." The fourth-"The Aryans would have
destroyed these towns in order to succeed" (succeed whom or in what is
unclear) - was rejected by archaeologists over 40 years ago, and so has the
fifth: "The heap of bones discovered in Mohenjo-daro is evidence of the
invasion of the foreigners," especially as there is no "heap of bones"
anywhere, only a few scattered skeletons which belong to different epochs.
The third reason alone-a change in the course of the Indus-is among the
accepted factors, but is poorly expressed and quite incomplete.
Let us turn to Chapter 4, "The Vedic Period", which opens with the arrival
of the Aryans around 1500 BCE-a highly disputed colonial theory presented as
hard fact. It adds piquant details: Aryan men, besides dhotis and shawls,
wore turbans and had "bands on their foreheads", an awkward and wholly
fictitious combination. The Congress (I) will be delighted to learn that
among other gods, the Aryans worshipped "Indira" (instead of Indra; another
is "Varna", instead of Varuna). A table summarizes the "qualities of
Dravidians and Aryans" in two neat columns of nine points, the first of
which attributes to Dravidians "dark complexion, medium height, dark long
hair", and to the Aryans "fair, tall and brown hair". Clearly, we shall
never move away from the racial theories of the colonial era, even if they
stand wholly discredited in the light of modern anthropology and genetics.
The other eight points take it for granted that the Dravidians were the
authors of the Indus civilization, a theory that has been around for decades
but has few takers among archaeologists. That the Dravidian/Aryan contrast
is viewed as purely racial is confirmed by the complete absence of a
linguistic comparison, the only legitimate one today. In fact, there is no
mention of Sanskrit; our Class VI student shall never learn that such a
language existed, in conformity with the anti-Sanskrit stance of the
Dravidian movement.
Tamil, by contrast, receives much attention. In fact, Chapter 3 on "Ancient
Tamil Nadu", judiciously placed before "The Vedic Period", presents as fact
the legend of the Kumari Kandam, a mythical land south of India, where the
first two of the three Sangams flourished before the land was swallowed by
the sea (to appear more credible, the textbook uses the word "tsunami",
unaware of the fact that a tsunami swallows no land). This occurred "before
prehistoric period" and "this land mass was eight to ten times bigger than
South India," complete with "wide ranges of mountains", "civilized people
and efficient kingdom" (excuse the broken English). So we had civilization
even before prehistory!
The textbook goes on to identify Kumari Kandam with the equally mythical
lost continent of Lemuria, and asserts that "conditions were favourable for
the growth of living organisms only at Cape Comorin which was submerged
after the tsunami... Because of this the evolution of man would have taken
place then. The language spoken by those people was the basic of Tamil
language." Humans thus evolved near Cape Comorin in Lemuria-not in Africa as
we thought-and spoke Tamil right from the beginning. I have no problem with
a mild dose of national or regional pride, but this planetary jingoism
boggles the mind.
There is more. Lemuria was a "big land mass connecting Africa and Australia"
and was so called after "the monkey Lemur" - but lemurs are not monkeys.
Never mind, "it was believed that human beings evolved from the Lemurs. The
language of the people was ancient Tamil" - in case you had forgotten. As
regards humans being descended from Lemurs, this is a momentous discovery
that will call for rewriting textbooks on human evolution. On geology, too:
the supercontinent of the Southern hemisphere, which is thought to have
included South America, Africa, the Indian subcontinent, Australia and
Antarctica, is called Gondwana-not Lemuria-and broke up some 200 million
years ago, according to current research. Compare this with two million
years of human evolution, and the absurdity of a Lemur-descended,
Tamil-speaking early humanity ought to be plain enough.
Legends and myths are wonderful windows on the ancient mind in any culture.
But to present the Kumari Kandam tradition as a scientific finding (adding
spicy details that figure nowhere in the Sangam literature) would be like
asserting that Rahu's swallowing of the sun during eclipses is the latest in
astronomy.
There are more howlers in following chapters (we learn that "to attain the
spiritual goal the Jains starved"; moreover, "they eliminated clothes"), but
the above examples will suffice to illustrate the abysmal incompetence of
some of our textbook writers. Remember, in most Tamil Nadu schools, students
will not be allowed to move on to the next class unless they have mugged up
this farrago.
Better textbooks (such as those published by NCERT) do exist, but are not
free either from errors, confusion and lingering colonial stereotypes. In
this Internet age, perhaps it is time, as forward-looking educationists
suggest, to move beyond a textbook-centric education and make creative use
of a variety of materials. This may involve some trial and error, but it
cannot do worse than the above kind of disgraceful material.... End of Quote.
If all these that goes on India, what remains of Indian history and historians. Who will beieve in whom as knowledgable experts. Poverty is not limited to dearth of food intake but inflow of garbage in the brains.
Poverty eradication programmes may need a complete overhaul in India. Those who read textbooks get some food for the body but garbage poison for the brains.
A textbook case of howlers
Michel Danino
Express News Service
First Published : 18 Oct 2010 03:33:28 AM IST
As a nation, we often take pride in our history, yet in my decade-long
interactions with Indian students and teachers, I have rarely found any in
love with the discipline. Rather, comments like "I hate history" or "History
is so boring" sum up the general feeling. You are likely to share it if you
open the latest history textbook prescribed for Class VI in 2010-11 by the
Tamil Nadu government under its "common syllabus".
Let us begin with the Indus or Harappan civilization, Chapter 2. On a map,
an important Harappan site, Kalibangan, is shown inside Pakistan instead of
northern Rajasthan (has Pakistan encroached on Indian land?); another site,
Rupar, is placed right on the international border, while it is close to
Chandigarh. The text informs us that "Harappa in Sindhi means 'Buried
City'," even though Harappa is in Punjab, not Sindh, and its etymology is
unknown. Harappan cities were so sophisticated that they boasted "street
lights"-certainly a world first! Another gem: "The terracotta planks
discovered here were engraved with letters"-as a student of archaeology, I
confess my ignorance of what a "terracotta plank" might be; perhaps this is
a garbled reference to Dholavira's famous three-metre-long inscription,
consisting of crystalline material set in a long-vanished wooden board.
Curiously, Dholavira, one of the five largest Harappan cities, and the
second largest in India, figures nowhere. Apparently, our textbook writers
rarely believe in updating their knowledge.
Among the five reasons given for the decline of this civilization, the first
is nonsensical: "Wooden articles would have got destroyed by fire," as if
that could have finished a whole civilization. The second is sheer fancy:
"Rivalry because of the civil war." The fourth-"The Aryans would have
destroyed these towns in order to succeed" (succeed whom or in what is
unclear) - was rejected by archaeologists over 40 years ago, and so has the
fifth: "The heap of bones discovered in Mohenjo-daro is evidence of the
invasion of the foreigners," especially as there is no "heap of bones"
anywhere, only a few scattered skeletons which belong to different epochs.
The third reason alone-a change in the course of the Indus-is among the
accepted factors, but is poorly expressed and quite incomplete.
Let us turn to Chapter 4, "The Vedic Period", which opens with the arrival
of the Aryans around 1500 BCE-a highly disputed colonial theory presented as
hard fact. It adds piquant details: Aryan men, besides dhotis and shawls,
wore turbans and had "bands on their foreheads", an awkward and wholly
fictitious combination. The Congress (I) will be delighted to learn that
among other gods, the Aryans worshipped "Indira" (instead of Indra; another
is "Varna", instead of Varuna). A table summarizes the "qualities of
Dravidians and Aryans" in two neat columns of nine points, the first of
which attributes to Dravidians "dark complexion, medium height, dark long
hair", and to the Aryans "fair, tall and brown hair". Clearly, we shall
never move away from the racial theories of the colonial era, even if they
stand wholly discredited in the light of modern anthropology and genetics.
The other eight points take it for granted that the Dravidians were the
authors of the Indus civilization, a theory that has been around for decades
but has few takers among archaeologists. That the Dravidian/Aryan contrast
is viewed as purely racial is confirmed by the complete absence of a
linguistic comparison, the only legitimate one today. In fact, there is no
mention of Sanskrit; our Class VI student shall never learn that such a
language existed, in conformity with the anti-Sanskrit stance of the
Dravidian movement.
Tamil, by contrast, receives much attention. In fact, Chapter 3 on "Ancient
Tamil Nadu", judiciously placed before "The Vedic Period", presents as fact
the legend of the Kumari Kandam, a mythical land south of India, where the
first two of the three Sangams flourished before the land was swallowed by
the sea (to appear more credible, the textbook uses the word "tsunami",
unaware of the fact that a tsunami swallows no land). This occurred "before
prehistoric period" and "this land mass was eight to ten times bigger than
South India," complete with "wide ranges of mountains", "civilized people
and efficient kingdom" (excuse the broken English). So we had civilization
even before prehistory!
The textbook goes on to identify Kumari Kandam with the equally mythical
lost continent of Lemuria, and asserts that "conditions were favourable for
the growth of living organisms only at Cape Comorin which was submerged
after the tsunami... Because of this the evolution of man would have taken
place then. The language spoken by those people was the basic of Tamil
language." Humans thus evolved near Cape Comorin in Lemuria-not in Africa as
we thought-and spoke Tamil right from the beginning. I have no problem with
a mild dose of national or regional pride, but this planetary jingoism
boggles the mind.
There is more. Lemuria was a "big land mass connecting Africa and Australia"
and was so called after "the monkey Lemur" - but lemurs are not monkeys.
Never mind, "it was believed that human beings evolved from the Lemurs. The
language of the people was ancient Tamil" - in case you had forgotten. As
regards humans being descended from Lemurs, this is a momentous discovery
that will call for rewriting textbooks on human evolution. On geology, too:
the supercontinent of the Southern hemisphere, which is thought to have
included South America, Africa, the Indian subcontinent, Australia and
Antarctica, is called Gondwana-not Lemuria-and broke up some 200 million
years ago, according to current research. Compare this with two million
years of human evolution, and the absurdity of a Lemur-descended,
Tamil-speaking early humanity ought to be plain enough.
Legends and myths are wonderful windows on the ancient mind in any culture.
But to present the Kumari Kandam tradition as a scientific finding (adding
spicy details that figure nowhere in the Sangam literature) would be like
asserting that Rahu's swallowing of the sun during eclipses is the latest in
astronomy.
There are more howlers in following chapters (we learn that "to attain the
spiritual goal the Jains starved"; moreover, "they eliminated clothes"), but
the above examples will suffice to illustrate the abysmal incompetence of
some of our textbook writers. Remember, in most Tamil Nadu schools, students
will not be allowed to move on to the next class unless they have mugged up
this farrago.
Better textbooks (such as those published by NCERT) do exist, but are not
free either from errors, confusion and lingering colonial stereotypes. In
this Internet age, perhaps it is time, as forward-looking educationists
suggest, to move beyond a textbook-centric education and make creative use
of a variety of materials. This may involve some trial and error, but it
cannot do worse than the above kind of disgraceful material.... End of Quote.
If all these that goes on India, what remains of Indian history and historians. Who will beieve in whom as knowledgable experts. Poverty is not limited to dearth of food intake but inflow of garbage in the brains.
Poverty eradication programmes may need a complete overhaul in India. Those who read textbooks get some food for the body but garbage poison for the brains.
No comments:
Post a Comment