US Indymedia Global Indymedia Publish About us
Printed from Boston IMC : http://boston.indymedia.org/
Boston.Indymedia
IVAW Winter Soldier

Winter Soldier
Testimonies
Brad Presente

Other Local News

Spare Change News
Open Media Boston
Somerville Voices
Cradle of Liberty
The Sword and Shield

Local Radio Shows

WMBR 88.1 FM
What's Left
WEDS at 8:00 pm
Local Edition
FRI (alt) at 5:30 pm

WMFO 91.5 FM
Socialist Alternative
SUN 11:00 am

WZBC 90.3 FM
Sounds of Dissent
SAT at 11:00 am
Truth and Justice Radio
SUN at 6:00 am

Create account Log in
Comment on this article | Email this article | Printer-friendly version
News ::
Distortions in Indian History (english)
01 Jan 2003
Please read this to understand how distortions are done in Indian History






New Page 3




Distortions in Indian
History
Roots of distortion

India gained independence from the British in 1947, or more
than fifty years ago. But intellectually and educationally India continues be a
European colony. This is because, during the first forty years of her existence
as a free nation, the Congress Party and the intellectual establishment,
continued to encourage colonial institutions and thinking. The result today is
that there is an English educated elite that identifies itself more with the
West than with India and her ancient civilization. And the Congress Party,
especially after the death of Sardar Patel, has identified itself more with
foreign values rather than Indian values. The Communists, who have always been
hostile to Indian nationalism, have now joined hands with anti-national forces,
which are fiercely anti-Hindu. This is reflected in the attitude and behavior of
the English educated intellectuals, including the media.
The signs of this are everywhere — from hostility to
Sarasvati Vandana and the Pokharan nuclear tests to begging a European woman of
no experience or service to the nation, to rule the country. As a result, this
colonial holdover consisting of the Congress, the Communists and the Leftist
intellectual class (including the media) have come together to perpetuate
anti-national values and interests. This naturally makes them intensely
anti-Hindu. It views with fear anything that has even a suggestion of
nationalism rooted in Indian history and tradition.
Since Indian nationalism can only exist as a product of the
Hindu Civilization, these forces hostile to Hinduism have combined to oppose the
rise of national awareness that is now sweeping the country. The result is that
they will go to any length to give a negative picture of India and her past. The
first step in this is to distort Indian history. Fortunately for them, most of
the distortion had already been done for them by the British, and their
successors during the Congress rule. So all they had to do was to continue with
the colonial version of Indian history. As Swami Vivekananda pointed out more
than a century ago:
 

"The histories of our country written by English
[and other Western] writers cannot but be weakening to our minds, for they
talk only of our downfall. How can foreigners, who understand very little of
our manners and customs, or religion and philosophy, write faithful and
unbiased histories of India? Naturally, many false notions and wrong
inferences have found their way into them.
"Nevertheless they have shown us how to proceed making
researches into our ancient history. Now it is for us to strike out an
independent path of historical research for ourselves, to study the Vedas and
the Puranas, and the ancient annals of India, and from them make it your
life's sadhana to write accurate and soul-inspiring history of the land. It is
for Indians to write Indian history."



As Swami Vivekananda pointed out, the goal of the British was
to weaken the Indian spirit, particularly the Hindu spirit, because the
nationalist movement in India was mainly a Hindu movement. The nationalist
movement, which rose to great heights during the Swadeshi Movement following the
Partition of Bengal, lost its direction and focus in 1920 when Mahatma Gandhi
sacrificed Swaraj for the sake of the Khilafat. This in turn led to the
anti-Hindu orientation of the Congress under Jawaharlal Nehru. This was soon
joined by the Communists, who worked hand-in-glove with the Congress. The
Communists now are little more than camp followers of Sonia Gandhi and her
party.
So it is in the interests of these anti-national forces to
keep alive the colonial version of Indian history. Thanks to the domination of
the Indian political scene by the Congress, Communist intellectuals and fellow
travelers were able to dominate the intellectual scene also. As a result, the
colonial version of history continues to be taught in Indian schools and
colleges. This has led to gross distortions in the history being taught in
Indian schools and colleges. These distortions may be classified as follows:
 
 

 
Distortion of ancient history through the ‘Aryan invasion’ and the
Aryan-Dravidian wars, presenting the Vedic Age as an ‘age of conflict’
 
Distortion of the Medieval history, by whitewashing the Islamic record and
presenting it as the 'age of synthesis'.
 
Distortion of the period of the Freedom Struggle, by whitewashing Congress
blunders and suppressing the contribution of the revolutionaries, Sardar
Patel and Subhas Bose.
 
Distortion of post-independent India, by whitewashing the monumental
blunders of Pandit Nehru and his successors to bring about dynastic rule
under the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty at the cost of national interest.

 

 

It is worth taking a brief look at each one of them,
beginning with the ancient period. The first point to note that it was the
ancient period that gave India both its unity and its sense of the nation. The
Medieval period was a Dark Age, during which the Hindu civilization was engaged
in a desperate struggle for survival. In addition, the forces of medievalism
contributed nothing to Indian nationalism. They acted as a negative force and
held back progress, taking the country into a Dark Age. They continue to act as
a check against progress by holding on to medieval ideas and practices.
The important point to note is that the ancient period was an
age of synthesis, when people of different viewpoints like the Vedic, Tantric,
Buddhistic, Jain and other sects lived in relative harmony. There was also free
exchange of ideas and unfettered debate. The Medieval period was the age of
conflict when Hindu society was engaged in a desperate struggle for survival
against the onslaught of Jihad — something like what is happening in Kashmir
today. What the Congress sponsored Leftist (‘secularist’) historians have
done is to exactly reverse this. They have said that the ancient period was an
age of conflict between Aryans and non-Aryans, while trying to portray the
Medieval period — dominated by Jihad (or religious wars) — as a period of
synthesis.
 

Ancient India: age of freedom and synthesis

History books today begin with the Aryan invasion of India,
which is said to have taken place in 1500 BC. Students are told that the ancient
civilization of the Indus Valley or the Harappan Civilization was Dravidian that
was destroyed by the invading Aryans. According to this theory, the language of
the Harappan seals, which contain a good deal of writing, is some form of
Dravidian language, unrelated to Sanskrit. There are nearly 4000 of these with
writing on them, but until recently, no one could read them. Recently, the great
Vedic scholar N. Jha made a major breakthrough in deciphering it. Following the
breakthrough, Jha and I have read and published the writing on nearly 2000
seals. (We have read many more that are yet to be published.) The language of
the seals is Vedic Sanskrit. This means the Harappan Civilization was Vedic.
This also means there was no Aryan invasion and no
Aryan-Dravidian conflicts either. In Sanskrit, ‘Aryan’ simply means cultured
and not any race or language. I am myself a so-called Dravidian who speaks
Kannada. Kannada, like all South Indian languages, is heavily influenced by
Sanskrit. South Indian dynasties going back time immemorial called themselves
‘Aryas’ because they were followers of the Vedic culture. South has always
been a stronghold of Vedic culture and learning. Sayana, probably the greatest
Vedic scholar of the last thousand years was a South Indian. (He was the brother
of Vidyaranya, who helped Harihara and Bukka found the great Vijayanagara
Empire.)
The idea of Aryans and Dravidians as mutually hostile people
was created during the colonial period, in which Christian missionaries played
an active role. It was part of the British policy of divide and rule. Bishop
Caldwell was probably the most influential Dravidian scholar. When criticized
for his theories, he defended them "as not only of considerable moment from
a philological [linguistic] point of view but of vast moral and political
importance." By ‘moral and political’, he meant Christian
missionary and British colonial interests.
This shows that one of the main forces behind the Aryan
invasion theory, and of education policy in general, was the conversion of
Hindus to Christianity to make them accept British rule. According to the Aryan
invasion theory, the Vedas and Sanskrit language were brought by these
Indo-European invaders and not native to India. (This is now demolished by
science and also the decipherment of the Harappan writing.) Using this false
theory, the British could claim that India had always been ruled by foreign
invaders — first the Vedic Aryans, and later the Muslims. The British claimed
to be Aryans (as Indo-Europeans) and therefore only the latest rulers of India,
but related to their own ancient Aryans who also were foreign invaders!
Christian missionaries took advantage of this by enjoying the patronage of
colonial rulers. The presented the Bible as ‘Yesurveda’ — or the Veda of
Yesu (Jesus).
Many influential British officials felt that the conversion
of Hindus to Christianity would make them readily accept British rule. The most
influential of these was Thomas Babbington Macaulay who introduced the English
education system in India. He made no secret of his goal of conversion of India
to Christianity. In 1836, while serving as chairman of the Education Board in
India, he enthusiastically wrote his father:
 

"Our English schools are flourishing wonderfully.
The effect of this education on the Hindus is prodigious. ...... It is my
belief that if our plans of education are followed up, there will not be a
single idolator [Hindu] among the respectable classes in Bengal thirty years
hence. And this will be effected without any efforts to proselytise, without
the smallest interference with religious liberty, by natural operation of
knowledge and reflection. I heartily rejoice in the project."

 

So religious conversion and colonialism were to go hand in
hand. Christian missions always supported the colonial government, with
missionaries working hand in glove with the British government. They supported
the Jallianwallah Bagh Massacre also, even though many Englishmen were ashamed
of it. In a real sense Christian missions were not religious organizations at
all but an unofficial arm of the British Administration. (The same is true of
many Catholic missions in Central American countries. Many of them are in the
pay of the American CIA. This was admitted by a CIA director, testifying before
the Congress.)
It was part of the Macaulayite education program to distort
Indian history to serve British colonial and Christian missionary interest. To
do this, he employed a German Vedic scholar now famous as Friedrich Max Müller.
Macaulay used his influence with the East India Company to find funds for Max Müller's
translation of the Rigveda. There can be no doubt at all regarding Max Müller's
commitment to the conversion of Indians to Christianity. Writing to his wife in
1866 Max Müller himself explained his purpose:
 

"It [the Rigveda] is the root of
their religion [Hinduism] and to show them what the root is, I feel sure, is
the only way of uprooting all that has sprung from it during the last three
thousand years."

 

Two years later he also wrote the Duke of Argyle, then acting
Secretary of State for India: "The ancient religion of India is doomed. And
if Christianity does not take its place, whose fault will it be?" His job
was to uproot Hinduism by giving a negative version of the Vedas!
Unfortunately, the version of history being taught to
children in Indian schools and colleges, including the Aryan invasion, is the
version created by Macaulay and Max Müller. It is a tragedy. It is not only
anti-national but also totally false.
 

Unity of India is of untold antiquity

It was claimed by the British, and faithfully repeated by the
Leftist intellectuals, that the British unified India. This is completely false.
The unity of India, rooted in her ancient culture, is of untold antiquity. It
may have been divided at various times into smaller kingdoms, but the goal was
always to be united under a ‘Chakravartin’ or a ‘Samrat’. This unity was
cultural though not always political. This cultural unity was seriously damaged
during the Medieval period, when India was engaged in a struggle for survival
— like what is happening in Kashmir today. Going back thousands of years,
India had been united under a single ruler many times. The earliest recorded
emperor of India was Bharata, the son of Shakuntala and Dushyanta, but there
were several others. I give below some examples from the Aitareya Brahmana.
 

"With this great anointing of Indra, Dirghatamas
Mamateya anointed Bharata Daushanti. Therefore, Bharata Daushanti went round
the earth completely, conquering on every side and offered the horse in
sacrifice.
"With this great anointing of Indra, Tura Kavasheya
anointed Janamejaya Parikshita. Therefore Janamejaya Parikshita went round the
earth completely, conquering on every side and offered the horse in
sacrifice."

 

There are similar statements about Sudasa Paijavana anointed
by Vasistha, Anga anointed by Udamaya Atreya, Durmukha Pancala anointed by
Brihadukta and Atyarati Janampati anointed by Vasistha Satyahavya. Atyarati,
though not born a king, became an emperor and went on conquer even the Uttara
Kuru or the modern Sinkiang and Turkestan that lie north of Kashmir. There are
others also mentioned in the Shathapatha Brahmana and also the Mahabharata.
This shows that the unity of India is ancient. Also, the British did not
rule over a unified India. They had treaties with the rulers of hereditary
kingdoms like Mysore, Kashmir, Hyderabad and others that were more or less
independent. The person who united all these was Sardar Patel, not the British.
But this unification was possible only because India is culturally one.
Pakistan, with no such identity or cultural unity, is falling apart.
 

Medieval India: Dark Age and conflict

Harshavardhana was the last great Indian ruler of North
India. Several empires continued in the south like the Chalukya, the Rashtrakuta
and finally Vijayanagara. Islamic invasions into India began in the 8th
century or about a century after Harsha’s death. Iran (or Persia) collapsed
within a single generation to the Islamic armies, as did the eastern part of the
Byzantine Empire of Constantinople. Arabs intruded into Sind, but their hold did
not last. It took the Islamic forces more than 300 years before they could
defeat the Hindu kingdom of Afghanistan. Then the invasion of India began in
earnest with the Mahmud of Ghazni in the 10th – 11th
centuries.
It should be understood that what Islam brought to India —
and other parts of the world — was a new kind of warfare that was unknown in
ancient times. It was called Jihad. The idea was not merely to conquer a country
but to totally destroy its history and civilization. Iran and Egypt had great
civilizations going back thousands of years, but they have been totally wiped
out. This is what is happening to Afghanistan today and also what the Jihadists
are trying to do to Kashmir.
To understand what these warriors brought to India, it helps
to look at what believers in Jihad have to say today. The most influential of
these was General Zia-ul-Haq, the former president of Pakistan and the father of
Taliban. According to him, "JIHAD FI-SABILILLAH is not the exclusive domain
of the professional soldier, nor is it restricted to the application of military
force alone." The book The Quranic Concept of War, sponsored by him,
tells us that "More than mere military campaigns and battles, the Holy
Prophet's operations against the Pagans [pre-Islamic Arabs] are an integral and
inseparable part of the divine message revealed to us in the Holy Quran. ... The
war he planned and carried out was total to the infinite degree. It was waged on
all fronts: internal and external, political and diplomatic, spiritual and
psychological, economic and military."
This is what Jihad means: was total war — fought not only
against soldiers, but also against civilians, including women and children.
According to the Urdu instructional manual (called Jihad) carried by the
Pakistani militants in Kashmir, "The Quranic military strategy thus enjoins
us to prepare ourselves for war to the utmost in order to strike terror into the
heart of the enemy,… Terror struck into the hearts of the enemy is not only
a means, it is the end in itself. …Terror is not a means of imposing
decision upon the enemy; it is the decision we wish to impose upon him."
So terrorism is not an exception but an integral policy of
Jihad. This is what we are seeing today in Kashmir, and this is also what
Islamic vandals like Muhammad of Ghazni and others brought to India. The famous
Alberuni, who accompanied Muhammad on his campaigns into India wrote:
 


"... Nasir-addaula Sabuktagin. This prince chose the
holy war as his calling. ... his son Yamin-addaula Muhammad [of Ghazni]
marched into India during a period of thirty years and more. God be merciful
to both father and son! Muhammad utterly ruined the prosperity of the country,
and performed there wonderful exploits, by which the Hindus became like atoms
of dust scattered in all directions. ... Their scattered remains cherish, of
course, the most inveterate aversion of all the Muslims. This is the reason,
too, why Hindu sciences have retired far away from those parts of the country
conquered by us, and have fled to places which our hand cannot yet
reached."

 

So it was not just the wealth that was looted; Muhammad the
Holy Warrior was responsible for uprooting Hindu learning from the places he
invaded. This was part of the Jihad to uproot the civilization of India. Here is
one telling statistic that should give a true picture of the Islamic rule of
India, beginning with the invasions of Muhammad of Ghazni. Pre-Islamic India was
renowned for its universities. Great centers of learning like Nalanda, Vaishali,
Sarnath, Vikramashila, Taksha-shila, and many more — they attracted students
from all over Asia and the world. Following the Islamic invasion of India, all
these centers were destroyed. In the centuries following, during the next
eight hundred years, not a single university was established by any
Muslim ruler. This was a Dark Age worse than what overtook Europe in the
Middle Ages. Only in the last century or so is India slowly coming out of this
long Dark Age.
This is the true picture of Medieval India, which was a long
Dark Age. As the distinguished American historian Will Durant says, "The
Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history."
Fortunately, Hindu learning survived in places like Sringeri, Benares, Kanchi
and a few other places. Also, Indian rulers, especially in Vijayanagara, Mysore
and several others protected scholars and artists.
The problem today is that Leftist historians
(‘secularists’) claim that none of this happened even though there are
literally thousands of ruined temples and monasteries all over India to prove
it. One has only to go to Hampi, the former capital of Vijayanagara to see the
evidence. Even Akbar allowed Rajputs and other Hindus to join his administration
only because he could not find enough foreigners. Otherwise, the policy of the
Delhi Sultans and the Moghuls was to import officials from outside the country
— just as the British did. All this is whitewashed in Indian history books.
For example, students are taught that Babar was a tolerant ruler who loved
India. But here is what Babar himself says in his autobiography, the Baburnama.
 

"Chanderi had been in the daru'l-harb [Hindu rule] for
some years and held by Sanga's highest-ranking officer Meidini Rao, with four
or five thousand infidels, but in 934 [1527-28], through the grace of God, I
took it by force within a ghari or two, massacred the infidels, and brought it
into the bosom of Islam."

 

And when in a particularly happy mood, he wrote the following
poem:
 


For the sake of Islam I became a wanderer;
I battled infidels and Hindus.
I determined to become a martyr.
Thank God I became a holy warrior.

 

And what did he find interesting in India?
"Hindustan," he wrote, "is a place of little charm. ... The one
nice aspect of Hindustan is it is a large country with lots of gold and
money." In other words, he came to India attracted by loot. For the better
part of three hundred years, the Moghuls ruled North India as foreign occupiers,
using a foreign language — Persian — in their administration.
This record of Medieval India has been whitewashed in history
books in use today. One of the clearest examples of history distortion occurred
during the Ayodhya-Ramjanmabhumi controversy. Secularist historians repeatedly
asserted that no Ram Temple had been destroyed at the site of Babri Masjid. The
first point is that Muslim writers have made no secret of the fact that they
destroyed the temple. Here is what Aurangazeb’s granddaughter wrote in 1707,
in her Persian work Sahifah-i-Chihal Nasa'ih Bahadurshahi:

 



"... keeping the triumph of Islam in view, devout
Muslim rulers should keep all idolaters in subjection to Islam, brook no
laxity in realization of Jizyah, grant no exceptions to Hindu Rajahs from
dancing attendance on 'Id days and waiting on foot outside mosques till end of
prayer ... and 'keep in constant use for Friday and congregational prayer the
mosques built up after demolishing the temples of the idolatrous Hindus
situated at Mathura, Banaras and Avadh."

 

In addition to the matter of fact statement of
the destruction, what is striking is the tone of intolerance. She was after
all Aurangazeb’s granddaughter. In addition, we have archaeological evidence
showing that a temple existed at the site. After the demolition of the Babari
Masjid by karsevaks on December 6, 1992, archaeologists found a temple
under it and also a stone inscription. Here is what an important part of the
inscription says:
 


"Line 15 of this inscription, for example, clearly
tells us that a beautiful temple of Vishnu-Hari, built with heaps of stones...
, and beautified with a golden spire ... unparalleled by any other temple
built by earlier kings ... This wonderful temple ... was built in the
temple-city of Ayodhya situated in Saketamandala. ... Line 19 describes god
Vishnu as destroying king Bali ... and the ten-headed personage (Dashanana, or
Ravana)."

 

After all this, no one can argue that no temple was
destroyed. The distinguished archaeologist Professor B.B. Lal who carried out
the excavation at Ayodhya wrote a sixty-page report on his findings. But this
was suppressed, thanks to influential secularist historians like Irfan Habib,
Romila Thapar and R.S. Sharma. These secularists then put out a propaganda
pamphlet on Ayodhya denying that there ever was a temple at Ramjanmabhumi.
While the secularist intellectuals are motivated by their
hatred of Hinduism, Muslim intellectuals are driven by fear of Hindu backlash.
They know very well that their rulers have persecuted the Hindus for centuries.
In fact it was this fear that led to the founding of the Muslim League, with the
goal of asking the British never to leave India. Its first president Nawab
Viqar-ul-Mulk, Mushtaq Hussain said that if the British left, "then the
rule of India would pass into the hands of that community which is nearly four
times as large as ourselves … Then, our life, our property, our honor, and our
faith will all be in great danger. … woe betide the time when we become the
subjects of our neighbors, and answer to them for the sins, real or imaginary
of Aurangazeb, and other Mussalman conquerors and rulers who went before
him."

This is still the fear that haunts the Muslim intellectuals
in India. That is the reason why they begged the British to hold on to India and
protect them. It was this fear combined with the Congress appeasement policy
that led to the Partition. It was again this fear that made them support the
Congress dynasty from Nehru to Sonia Gandhi. And now, it is the same fear that
makes them turn themselves into a vote bank to be manipulated by cynical
politicians like Mulayam Singh and Laloo Prasad Yadav.
This fear is baseless. Hindus are not a vindictive people.
But the Muslims and their newfound secularist allies cannot expect the Hindus to
accept falsehoods about their history and tradition simply to serve their own
interests. They cannot whitewash their terrible record and try to put all the
blame on the Hindu victims in the interests of their version of
‘secularism’. This would be like blaming the Jews for the Nazi atrocities.
The only way of achieving peace and harmony is for the Muslim leadership to
acknowledge the crimes of their ancestors and learn to live at peace with their
Hindu neighbors. They should also give up intolerant doctrines like Jihad as
medieval barbarisms incompatible with civilization. As the late K.M. Munshi
wrote fifty years ago:
 


"If, however, the misuse of this word 'secularism'
continues, ... if, every time there is an inter-communal conflict, the
majority is blamed regardless of the merits of the question,... the springs of
traditional tolerance will dry up. While the majority exercises patience and
tolerance, the minorities should adjust themselves to the majority. Otherwise
the future is uncertain and an explosion cannot be avoided."

 


This is exactly what happened at Ayodhya. If the country does
not learn its lessons, it will be repeated over and over again. The secularist
intellectuals, who were busy falsifying history, were not there to defend the
disputed structure at Ramjanmabhumi or protect the victims in the riots that
followed. In fact they were the first to run from the scene. The lesson: history
cannot be falsified forever. In the end truth will always triumph — satyameva
jayate. We should be prepared to face the truth.
 

The Freedom Movement

Just as ancient and medieval history have been distorted
under Congress patronage, history of the Freedom Movement has also been dressed
up to favor the Congress and the Communists. This distortion has the following
three parts: (1) Building up the role of Gandhi and Nehru while suppressing the
contribution of others, notably Subhas Bose. (2) Whitewashing Gandhi’s
terrible blunder of supporting the Khilafat Movement and the atrocities of the
Mopla Rebellion that followed. (3) Whitewashing the treachery of the Communists.
We can next take a brief look at each one of them.
It is commonly believed that it was the Congress Party
through its various movements like the Quit India Movement of 1942 that brought
freedom to India. This fails to explain the fact that the British granted
independence only in 1947 while the Quit India Movement had collapsed by the end
of 1942. The question that naturally arises is— why did the British leave in
such great hurry in August 1947? The answer was provided by Prime Minister
Clement Attlee, the man who made the decision to grant independence to India.
When B.P. Chakravarti was acting as Governor of West Bengal,
Lord Attlee visited India and stayed as his guest for three days at the Raj
Bhavan. Chakravarti asked Attlee about the real grounds for granting
independence to India. Specifically, his question was, when the Quit India
movement lay in ruins years before 1947, where was the need for the British to
leave in such a hurry. Attlee’s response is most illuminating and important
for history. Here is what Attlee told him:

In reply Attlee cited several reasons, the most
important were the activities of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose which weakened the
very foundation of the attachment of the Indian land and naval forces to the
British Government. Towards the end, I asked Lord Attlee about the extent to
which the British decision to quit India was influenced by Gandhi’s
activities. On hearing this question Attlee’s lips widened in a smile of
disdain and he uttered, slowly, putting emphasis on each single letter — "mi-ni-mal."
(Emphasis added.)

 

The crucial point to note is that thanks to Subhas Bose’s
activities, the Indian Armed Forces began to see themselves as defenders of
India rather than of the British Empire. This, more than anything else, was what
led to India’s freedom. This is also the reason why the British Empire
disappeared from the face of the earth within an astonishingly short space of
twenty years. Indian soldiers, who were the main prop of the Empire, were no
longer willing to fight for the British. What influenced the British decision
was mutiny of the Indian Navy following the INA trials in 1946. While the
British wanted to try Subhas Bose’s INA as traitors, Indian soldiers saw them
as nationalists and patriots. This scared the British. They decided to get out
in a hurry.
(Attlee repeated his argument on at least two other
occasions, including once in the House of Commons. During a debate in the House
of Commons, he told Churchill that he would agree to the latter’s suggestion
of holding on to India if he could guarantee the loyalty of the Indian armed
forces. Churchill had no reply. The Labour Prime Minister was as much an
imperialist as Churchill, but more pragmatic, prepared to see the writing on the
wall.)
This will come as a shock to most Indians brought up to
believe that the Congress movement driven by the ‘spiritual force’ of
Mahatma Gandhi forced the British to leave India. But both evidence and the
logic of history are against this beautiful but childish fantasy. It was the
fear of mutiny by the Indian armed forces — and not any ‘spiritual force’
— that forced the issue of freedom. The British saw that the sooner they left
the better for themselves, for, at the end of the war, India had some three
million men under arms. One would have to be extraordinarily dense — which
the British were not — to fail to see the writing on the wall.
So, as the great historian R.C. Majumdar wrote, Subhas Bose
with his INA campaigns probably contributed more to Indian independence than
Gandhi, Nehru and their movements. The result of Subhas Bose’s activities was
the rise of the nationalist spirit in the Indian Armed Forces. This is the
reason why Nehru, after he became Prime Minister, did everything possible to
turn Bose into a non-person. He wanted no rivals.
This brings us to Mahatma Gandhi and his ill-fated Nonviolent
Non-Cooperation Movement. Most Indians have been made to believe that it was the
first of Gandhi’s movements for India’s freedom. This is completely false.
The Non-Cooperation Movement was for the restoration of the Sultan of Turkey as
the Caliph. This was known as the Khilafat Movement, launched by Indian Muslims,
led by Maulanas Mohamad Ali and Shaukat Ali. In fact, Gandhi postponed
Tilak’s Swaraj Resolution by nearly ten years in order to join the Khilafat.
(Lokamanya Tilak had died in 1920 and Gandhi and the Ali Brothers
launched the Khilafat in 1921. Gandhi even diverted a substantial part of the
Tilak Swaraj Fund to the Khilafat.) Indian history books omit the fact that the
sole purpose of the Non-Cooperation Movement was the restoration of the Sultan
of Turkey.
Gandhi promised the Ali Brothers that the British would be
driven out ‘within the year’. The failure of the Khilafat agitation, whose
goal was to replace the British Raj with what Annie Beasant called ‘Khilafat
Raj’, led to a Jihad known as the Mopla Rebellion in which thousands of
innocent people were slaughtered. (Moplas are a Muslim sect of the Malabar
district in Kerala.) History books, controlled by the Congress-secularist
establishment rarely mention the Mopla Rebellion, which was the main result of
the Gandhi-Congress support for the Khilafat Movement. What is so bad about it
that they want to hide it? Sir Sankaran Nair, an eyewitness to the Mopla horrors
had this to say in his book Gandhi and Anarchy:
 

"For sheer brutality on women, I do not remember
anything in history to match the Malabar [Mopla] rebellion. ... The atrocities
committed more particularly on women are so horrible and unmentionable that I
do not propose to refer to them in this book." (See
Gandhi, Khilafat and the National Movement by N.S. Rajaram for several
eyewitness accounts.)
 

This brutality was to be equaled if not surpassed in the
holocaust of the Partition — now being re-enacted in Kashmir. What was
Gandhi's reaction to the Mopla outrages? He called the Moplas "God
fearing" and said they "are fighting for what they consider as
religion, and in a manner they consider as religious." This from the
Apostle of Nonviolence!
The message of the Khilafat was not lost on Muslim leaders
like Mohammed Ali Jinnah. (He had opposed the Congress support for the Khilafat.)
He correctly recognized that the Congress leaders would always back down in the
face of threat of violence. They would rather appease than fight on principles.
This happened repeatedly — in 1948 and 1972 in dealing with Pakistan, and also
in the 1950s in dealing with China and Tibet. Nehru abandoned Kashmir to
Pakistan (through the UN) and abandoned also Tibet to China, sacrificing
India’s national interests. As Congress ruled India for forty years following
independence, this practice of appeasement gave India the label of a ‘soft
state’.
The Congress’s appeasement policy reached its absurd limit,
when the Nehru Government succumbed to Gandhi’s blackmail and gave Pakistan 55
crore rupees at a time when Indian troops were fighting the Pakistanis in
Kashmir. I already noted that Gandhi had diverted a substantial sum from the
Tilak Swaraj Fund to the Khilafat, in addition to postponing Tilak’s Swaraj
Resolution in favor of the Khilafat Movement.
Another source of distortion of this period of history is
rooted in the treacherous role played by the Communists. This is a matter of
record, though Communist intellectuals, by monopolizing institutions like the
ICHR, are trying to whitewash their role. To understand their treachery, we
should recognize that Communist leaders in other colonized countries were first
and foremost nationalists who fought for freedom. Next, they came from the
masses. This is true of leaders like Mao of China, Ho Chi Min of Vietnam, Fidel
Castro of Cuba and several others. Indian Communist leaders on the other hand
come mostly from the English educated elite. They have always looked to the West
for everything. So when India was fighting for her freedom, the Communists were
agents of foreign governments like Germany, Russia, Britain and finally even
Pakistan!
When the Second World War began, because of the Stalin-Hitler
Pact, the Communists found themselves on the same side as Nazi Germany. They
were ordered by Stalin to support Hitler’s war as a war against imperialist
countries like Britain and France. When Germany attacked Russia in June 1941,
the Indian Communists made a 180-degree turn and began supporting the British!
This meant working against national leaders like Gandhi and Subhas Bose, who
were seen as enemies of the British. The great historian R.C. Majumdar wrote:
 

"During the great national upsurge of 1942, the
Communists acted as stooges and spies of the British Government… Mr. Joshi
(of the Communist Party) was placing at the disposal of India the services of
his Party Members… Joshi had, as General Secretary of the Party, written a
letter in which he offered ‘unconditional help’ to the then Government of
India and the Army GHQ to fight the 1942 underground workers and the Azad Hind
Fauz (INA) of Subhas Chandra Bose… Joshi’s letter revealed that the CPI
was receiving financial aid from the British Government, had a secret pact
with the Muslim League…"

 

As part of their pact with the Muslim League, the Communists
openly supported the demand for Pakistan, "but went much further by saying
that every linguistic group in India had a distinct nationality and was entitled
… to secede." After independence, the Communists struck a deal with the
Nizam’s Government in Hyderabad and joined hands with the Razakars to fight
Hyderabad’s accession to India with Pakistan’s help. When Sardar Patel sent
troops into Hyderabad, Kasim Rizvi ran away to Pakistan, handing over the bulk
of his guns and other arms to the Communists. The Communists kept up an armed
insurrection in the Telengana region for a few years until ordered to stop by
the Soviet dictator Stalin.
The Communists supported China’s attack on India and 1962
and also the Chinese nuclear tests, while vehemently opposing India’s
successful tests at Pokharan. It is this formidable record of treachery that the
Communist intellectuals are trying to erase by controlling institutions like the
ICHR, NIEPA and NCERT. They have now joined hands with the Sonia Congress in a
desperate struggle for survival.
 

Independent India: Dynastic blunders

For over forty years after independence, India was ruled
directly or indirectly by the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty. As a result, national
interest was often sacrificed for personal dynastic interests. On at least three
occasions, Nehru sacrificed India’s interests for the sake of international
glory for himself. First is his well-known blunder of referring Kashmir to the
United Nations when Indian troops were on the verge of driving the Pakistanis
out of Kashmir. The next was his betrayal of Tibet to please China and gain
glory for himself in Korea. The third was his failure to settle the border with
China because of his preoccupation with his fantasy of Pancha Sheel. Nehru’s
colossal blunder in Kashmir is well known, so I will briefly discuss his fiasco
in dealing with Tibet and China.
But first I want to highlight an important but often
overlooked point. It was not Pakistan that created the Kashmir problem. Nehru
created the problem with his two blunders: referring Kashmir to the United
Nations and agreeing to the present cease fire line or the LOC. At the very
least Nehru should have asked for the Indus River as the Line of Control. Similarly,
what I want to next is explain that it was not China but again Nehru that
created the border problem with China with his multiple blunders. With his
blunder upon blunder Nehru sacrificed thousands of lives— both soldiers and
civilians. His grandson Rajiv Gandhi contributed his own share of blunders by
sending Indian troops into Sri Lanka unprepared. Let me next examine the Chinese
scene.
 

Nehru and the China-Tibet blunder

In the year 1950, two momentous events shook Asia and the
world. One was the Chinese invasion of Tibet, and the other, Chinese
intervention in the Korean War. The first was near, on India’s borders, the
other, far away in the Korean Peninsula where India had little at stake. By all
canons of logic, India should have devoted utmost attention to the immediate
situation in Tibet, and let interested parties like China and the U.S. sort it
out in Korea. But Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s Prime Minister, did exactly the
opposite. He treated the Tibetan crisis in a haphazard fashion, while getting
heavily involved in Korea. India today is paying for this folly by being the
only country of its size in the world without an official boundary with its
giant neighbor. Tibet soon disappeared from the map. As in Kashmir, Nehru
sacrificed national interest at home in pursuit of international glory abroad.
India at the time maintained missions in Lhasa and Gyangtse.
Due to the close relations that existed between India and Tibet going back
centuries and also because of the unsettled conditions in China, Tibet’s
transactions with the outside world were conducted mainly through India. Well
into 1950, the Indian Government regarded Tibet as a free country.
The Chinese announced their invasion of Tibet on 25 October
1950. According to them, it was to ‘free Tibet from imperialist forces’, and
consolidate its border with India. Nehru announced that he and the Indian
Government were "extremely perplexed and disappointed with the Chinese
Government’s action..." Nehru also complained that he had been "led
to believe by the Chinese Foreign Office that the Chinese would settle the
future of Tibet in a peaceful manner by direct negotiation with the
representatives of Tibet…"
This was not true, for in September 1949, more than a year
before the Chinese invasion, Nehru himself had written: "Chinese communists
are likely to invade Tibet." The point to note is that Nehru, by sending
mixed signals, showing more interest in Korea than in Tibet, had encouraged the
Chinese invasion; the Chinese had made no secret of their desire to invade
Tibet. In spite of this, Nehru’s main interest was to sponsor China as a
member of the UN Security Council instead of safeguarding Indian interests in
Tibet.
Because of this, when the Chinese were moving troops into
Tibet, there was little concern in Indian official circles. Panikkar, the Indian
Ambassador in Beijing, went so far as to pretend that there was ‘lack of
confirmation’ of the presence of Chinese troops in Tibet and that to protest
the Chinese invasion of Tibet would be an "interference to India’s
efforts on behalf of China in the UN". So Panikkar was more interested in
protecting Chinese interests in the UN than India’s own interests on the
Tibetan border! Nehru agreed with his Ambassador. He wrote, "our primary
consideration is maintenance of world peace… Recent developments in Korea have
not strengthened China’s position, which will be further weakened by any
aggressive action [by India] in Tibet." So Nehru was ready to sacrifice
India’s national security interests in Tibet so as not to weaken China’s
case in the UN!
It is nothing short of tragedy that the two greatest
influences on Nehru at this crucial juncture in history were Krishna Menon and
K.M. Panikkar, both communists. Panikkar, while nominally serving as Indian
ambassador in China, became practically a spokesman for Chinese interests in
Tibet. Sardar Patel remarked that Panikkar "has been at great pains to find
an explanation or justification for Chinese policy and actions." India
eventually gave up its right to have a diplomatic mission in Lhasa on the ground
that it was an ‘imperialist legacy’. This led to Nehru’s discredited
‘Hindi-Chini Bhai Bhai’. Mao had no reciprocal affection for India and never
spoke of ‘Chini-Hindi Bhai Bhai’ — or its Chinese equivalent. Far from it,
he had only contempt for India and its leaders. Mao respected only the strong
who would oppose him, and not the weak who bent over backwards to please him.
Sardar Patel warned Nehru: "Even though we regard
ourselves as friends of China, the Chinese do not regard us as friends." He
wrote a famous letter in which he expressed deep concern over developments in
Tibet, raising several important points. In particular, he noted that a free and
friendly Tibet was vital for India’s security, and everything including
military measures should be considered to ensure it. On November 9, 1950, two
days after he wrote the letter to Nehru, he announced in Delhi: "In Kali
Yuga, we shall return ahimsa for ahimsa. If anybody resorts to
force against us, we shall meet it with force." But Nehru ignored Patel’s
letter. The truth is that India was in a strong position to defend its interests
in Tibet, but gave up the opportunity for the sake of pleasing China. It is
not widely known in India that in 1950, China could have been prevented from
taking over Tibet.

Patel on the other hand recognized that in 1950, China was in
a vulnerable position, fully committed in Korea and by no means secure in its
hold over the mainland. For months General MacArthur had been urging President
Truman to "unleash Chiang Kai Shek" lying in wait in Formosa (Taiwan)
with full American support. China had not yet acquired the atom bomb, which was
more than ten years in the future. India had little to lose and everything to
gain by a determined show of force when China was struggling to consolidate its
hold.
In addition, India had international support, with world
opinion strongly against Chinese aggression in Tibet. The world in fact was
looking to India to take the lead. The highly influential English journal The
Economist echoed the Western viewpoint when it wrote: "Having
maintained complete independence of China since 1912, Tibet has a strong claim
to be regarded as an independent state. But it is for India to take a lead in
this matter. If India decides to support independence of Tibet as a buffer
state between itself and China, Britain and U.S.A. will do well to extend formal
diplomatic recognition to it."
So China could have been stopped. But
this was not to be. Nehru ignored Patel’s letter as well as international
opinion and gave up this golden opportunity to turn Tibet into a friendly buffer
state. With such a principled stand, India would also have acquired the status
of a great power while Pakistan would have disappeared from the radar screen of
world attention. Much has been made of Nehru’s blunder in Kashmir, but it
pales in comparison with his folly in Tibet. As a result of this monumental
failure of vision — and nerve — India soon came to be treated as a third
rate power, acquiring ‘parity’ with Pakistan. Two months later Patel was
dead.
Even after the loss of Tibet, Nehru gave up opportunities to
settle the border with China. To understand this, it is necessary to appreciate
the fact that what China desired most was a stable border with India. With
this in view, the Chinese Premier Zhou-en-Lai visited India several times to fix
the boundary between the two countries. In short, the Chinese proposal amounted
to the following: they were prepared to accept the McMahon Line as the boundary
in the east — with possibly some minor adjustments and a new name — and then
negotiate the unmarked boundary in the west between Ladakh and Tibet. In effect,
what Zhou-en-Lai proposed was a phased settlement, beginning with the eastern
boundary. Nehru, however, wanted the whole thing settled at once. The practical
minded Zhou-en-Lai found this politically impossible. And on each visit, the
Chinese Premier in search of a boundary settlement, heard more about the
principles of Pancha Sheela than India’s stand on the boundary. He interpreted
this as intransigence on India’s part.
China in fact went on to settle its boundary with Mayammar
(Burma) roughly along the McMahon Line following similar principles. Contrary to
what the Indian public was told, the border between Ladakh (in the Princely
State of Kashmir) and Tibet was never clearly demarcated. As late as 1960, the
Indian Government had to send survey teams to Ladakh to locate the boundary and
prepare maps. But the Government kept telling the people that there was a
clearly defined boundary, which the Chinese were refusing to accept.
What the situation demanded was a creative approach,
especially from the Indian side. There were several practical issues on which
negotiations could have been conducted — especially in the 1950s when India
was in a strong position. China needed Aksai Chin because it had plans to
construct an access road from Tibet to Xinjiang province (Sinkiang) in the west.
Aksai Chin was of far greater strategic significance to China than to India. (It
may be a strategic liability for India — being expensive to maintain and hard
to supply, even more than the Siachen Glacier.) Had Nehru recognized this he
might have proposed a creative solution like asking for access to Mount Kailash
and Manasarovar in return for Chinese access to Aksai Chin. The issue is not
whether such an agreement was possible, but no solutions were proposed. The
upshot of all this was that China ignored India — including Pancha Sheel —
and went ahead with its plan to build the road through Aksai Chin.
This is still not the full story. On the heels of this twin
blunder — abandonment of Tibet and sponsorship of China, with nothing to show
in return — Nehru deceived the Indian public in his pursuit of international
glory through Pancha Sheel. Pancha Sheel, which was the
principal ‘policy’ of Nehru towards China from the betrayal of Tibet to the
expulsion of Dalai Lama in 1959, is generally regarded as a demonstration of
good faith by Nehru that was exploited by the Chinese who ‘stabbed him in the
back’. This is not quite correct, for Nehru (and Krishna Menon) knew about
the Chinese incursions in Ladakh and Aksai Chin but kept it secret for years to
keep the illusion of Pancha Sheel alive.

General Thimayya had brought the Chinese activities in Aksai
Chin to the notice of Nehru and Krishna Menon several years before that. An
English mountaineer by name Sydney Wignall was deputed by Thimayya to verify
reports that the Chinese were building a road through Aksai Chin. He was
captured by the Chinese but released and made his way back to India after
incredible difficulties, surviving several snowstorms. Now Thimayya had proof of
Chinese incursion. When the Army presented this to the Government, Menon blew
up. In Nehru’s presence, he told the senior officer making the presentation
that he was "lapping up CIA propaganda."
Wignall was not Thimayya’s only source. Shortly after the
Chinese attack in 1962, I heard from General Thimayya that he had deputed a
young officer of the Madras Sappers (MEG) to Aksai Chin to investigate reports
of Chinese intrusion who brought back reports of the Chinese incursion. But the
public was not told of it simply to cover up Nehru’s blunders. He was still
trying to sell his Pancha Sheel and Hindi-Chini Bhai Bhai to the Indian public.
Even today, Nehru’s family members exercise dictatorial control over the
documents pertaining to this crucial period. Even documents in the National
Archives are not available to scholars without permission from the Nehru-Gandhi
family heirs. This is to protect his reputation from being damaged by the truth.
The sorry catalog of blunders continued after Nehru’s
death. In the Bangladesh war, India achieved one of the most decisive victories
in modern history. More than 90,000 Pakistani soldiers were in Indian custody.
The newly independent Bangladesh wanted to try these men as war criminals for
their atrocities against the people of East Bengal. The Indian Government could
have used this as a bargaining chip with Pakistan and settled the Kashmir
problem once and for all. Instead, Indira Gandhi threw away this golden
opportunity in exchange for a scrap of paper called the Shimla Agreement. Thanks
to this folly, Pakistan is more active than ever in Kashmir.
 

Kargil and its lessons: brush with disaster

This sad string of failures holds an important lesson in
history. The Congress has always been a party held together by a personality —
first the Mahatma, later Nehru, and now Sonia Gandhi. It is inevitable therefore
that force of personality rather than concern of national interest should have
influenced major decisions even at crucial points in history. This was so in
Kashmir, in Tibet, over the border dispute with China, the Shimla Agreement, and
most recently, the misadventure in Sri Lanka. It is India’s misfortune that
this personality dominated entity should have controlled the fate of the nation
for the better part of half a century since independence. The question for the
future is — will history repeat itself or have the people of India learnt
their lesson. The Congress apparently has not. This is clear from its behavior
preceding the brief war with Pakistan over Kargil, when Sonia Gandhi tried to
takeover the Government in a coup under false pretences.
It is unnecessary to go into the details of this sordid
episode, but a basic question needs to be asked. There are complaints all around
that Sonia Gandhi is destroying the Congress party because of her inexperience
and her style of functioning. But the same Congressmen were willing to bring
down the Government and install her as Prime Minister — just as Pakistani
soldiers were infiltrating across the LOC in Kashmir. The question is — what
would have been the fate of Kashmir and India, had the coup attempt succeeded,
with the immature not to say irresponsible Sonia Gandhi in the place of Vajpayee
as Prime Minister, with the likes of Jayalalitha and Subramanian Swamy in
control? It does not take much intelligence to see that Kashmir would have been
lost, giving Sonia Gandhi an excellent excuse to declare Emergency leading to
dynastic dictatorship. This would bring back European rule with a vengeance.
At the very least, the episode involving the infamous tea
party and the coup attempt showed that there are people at the highest level who
have no conception of national security. Anyone who indulges in such a reckless
adventure, treating the nation and its interests in such a lighthearted manner
is unfit for high office.
This is what India escaped in April 1999 — no thanks to the
Congress party. Nehru may no longer be on the scene but his legacy of
sacrificing national interest for personal gain — or what N.R. Waradpande in a
forthcoming book on Nehru has called ‘assault on nationhood’ — continues
unabated. By no stretch of the imagination can the dynasty or its party be
called nationalistic. The behavior of the Congress party in mindlessly
supporting Sonia Gandhi’s coup attempt at the cost of national interest shows
both Nehru and his party in their true colors.

 
Corruption of national institutions

As I just noted, even some documents in the National Archives
are not available to scholars if the Nehru family members feel that they might
contain any damaging information. But the Congress, joined by the Communists,
went much further, especially when Indira Gandhi became Prime Minister. Just as
Nehru sought control of the 'commanding heights of the economy' with his
socialistic planning, he and his successors built a centralized educational
establishment that would perpetuate his anti-Hindu view of Indian history and
civilization. This led to anti-Hindu forces dominating education for nearly
fifty years.
The first minister of education was Maulana Azad — said to
be a 'nationalist' Muslim and a close friend and open admirer of Nehru — at
least in public. Azad was an indolent man and an ineffective administrator, but
with a strong commitment to exalting the glory of Islamic rule in India. (He had
also a hand in sabotaging R.C. Majumdar’s multi-volume work on the Indian
Freedom Movement, which at times was critical of the Congress.) So the official
rewriting of Indian history had begun — with its whitewashing of the horrors
of Islamic rule accompanied by the introduction of anti-Hindu propaganda —
describing Hinduism as full of inequities and Islam as egalitarian. Nehru
himself had set the trend with his glorification of Muhammad of Ghazni and Babar.
Under this program of de-Hinduisation, vandals and terrorists
like Ghazni, Babar and Aurangazeb were treated as bringers of civilization and
equality, while portraying such freedom fighters as Shivaji, Rana Pratap,
Chandrashekar Azad and others as obstructionists standing in the way of
progress. But thanks to the official hospitality extended to such historical
revisions, the influential National Council for Educational Research and
Training (NCERT) came to be dominated by scholars who pursued the Nehruvian
agenda or were willing to cater to it. The same was true of another influential
educational body — National Institute for Educational Planning and
Administration (NIEPA). Independent minded historians and other scholars who
were not prepared to toe this official line were removed or made ineffective.
A fateful event that played into the hands of the Secularists
was the appointment of Nurul Hassan as education minister in the Indira Gandhi
regime. He claimed to be a Marxist, but he pursued an anti-Hindu agenda like a
Muslim Fundamentalist. (After the creation of Pakistan, many Muslim
Fundamentalists pretended to be Marxists, and kept attacking Hinduism for its
‘inequality’.) As a result, anti-Hinduism acquired a stranglehold on
education. NIEPA is a particularly influential body that administers and
oversees educational policy in India. NCERT controls textbooks and other
materials that are used in schools and colleges in India. Both were now under
the firm control of anti-Hindu forces.
Through his control of these two powerful bodies, Nurul
Hassan became education Czar in India. He extended patronage to the Marxist
dominated Jawaharlal Nehru University and Muslim separatist Aligarh Muslim
University. They were allowed to provide consultants and experts on all
educational matters. As a result, these two academically undistinguished but
politically opportunistic universities have come to command resources and
influence out of all proportion to their merit.
A single example should help give an idea of the dangers of
this centralized feudal educational policy. For over 20 years, H.S. Khan headed
the history and sociology division of the NCERT. He is known to hold the view
that India became civilized only through the introduction of Islam. This
incidentally is also the official Pakistani line. This was also the view of
Nurul Hassan who was of course the patron of H.S. Khan. This is taking the Aryan
invasion idea a giant step forward (or backward).
In 1986, on Khan's initiative, textbook writers in all the
states were directed to change the version of history to accord with the
anti-Hindu model. Specific guidelines were issued to all the states instructing
them not to glorify any period of history — meaning any Hindu period — as a
Golden Age; the Gupta period therefore was not to be glorified despite its great
achievements. As a further step in de-Hinduisation and rehabilitation of
tyrannical Muslim rulers, Hindu leaders like Shivaji, Chandrashekara Azad and
Rana Pratap were not to be described as freedom fighters against alien rule, but
treated as terrorists who opposed 'civilized and civilizing' rulers like
Aurangazeb. As a result, the anti-Hindu agenda, which had been gaining strength
since the early 1950s, accelerated dramatically under the feudal regime of Nurul
Hassan. Only now, following the rout of the Congress party in the 1999
elections, their monopoly has come under threat. This has made these men and
women resort to desperate measures like what is coming out in the ICHR scandals.

What should be done?

From all this two points become clear. First, the history
being taught in Indian schools and colleges was created by colonial masters and
their willing servants to serve anti-national interests and damage India’s
heritage and culture. Second, institutions created to serve national educational
goals were dominated by self-serving individuals who are hostile to national
aspirations. The result is that institutions like the ICHR fell into the hands
of mediocre scholars with political influence. They have contributed little of
significance because of their worship of the West and their infer
Add a quick comment
Title
Your name Your email

Comment

Text Format
Anti-spam Enter the following number into the box:
To add more detailed comments, or to upload files, see the full comment form.