WHERE THE CRITIC CAN ONLY BE A DRAIN INSPECTOR

The new NCERT history text for Class VII, authored by Ms Sima Yadav in the

book India and the World1 is as unacceptable as the others in the series that I

have had occasion to remark upon. This one too betrays a level of incompetence

that is shocking beyond belief. More important, it lays bare the true designs of the

current regime (whose philistinism it amply reflects) that threaten to destroy a

part of the banyan tree of knowledge – the branch of the discipline of history – at

its very aerial roots.

The Class VII textbook follows the same scheme on medieval history as the

Class VI book does on ancient history. Students are first introduced to a number

of important civilizations of medieval world. This is followed by a more detailed

account of medieval Indian history. The characteristics of this medieval history

text are every bit the same as those of Makkhan Lal’s ancient history.

To begin with, the treatment of medieval world civilizations leaves almost

everything to be desired. Too little material is pushed under too many heads in

too unthinking and slipshod a manner to promote even a modicum of

understanding of the great medieval non-Indian cultures. In thirty-three pages

(including maps, illustrations, exercises, and much blank space) are tamped as it

were four civilizations of Central and South America (Olmec, Maya, Aztec, and

1 India and the World. A Social Science Textbook for Class VII, by Sima Yadav, Basabi Khan Banerjee, Sanjay Dubey, Themmichon Woleng. Editor: Nalini Pant. NCERT, New Delhi, 2003.

Inca), medieval Western Europe from the fifth to the fifteenth centuries, Islamic

civilization from the birth of Prophet Muhammad to the Turks, Central Asia, China

from the seventh to the fourteenth centuries, and three South-East Asian

civilization (pp. 59-91).

This bulldozing of history, it needs to be pointed out, runs counter to a central

guideline for history-writing as laid down by NCERT itself. It states that the topics

‘are few in number but their depth of treatment is more’ as ‘it is desirable to

emphasize the process of learning and thinking rather than mere acquisition of

facts’.

History is not merely bulldozed, however; it is also vandalized all the way. An

interesting case is that of the chinampas, the famous innovation of the Aztecs

who built up small islands in the midst of lakes. These man-made, highly

productive island, with the farmers moving from one to another by canoes, were

called chinampas, and are popularly known as ‘floating gardens’. Taking her cue

from the word ‘floating’, Yadav concludes that the chinampas were mobile fields:

Chinampas, we are told, ‘became floating fields which could be moved from one

place to another in the lake’ (p.63)!

Then there is a most generous offer of three choices from which to choose the

extent of the Inca civilization. First, it is stated to have developed ‘in the coastal

areas and highland of Andes mountains in Peru and Chile’ (p.60). Next, the

civilization ‘developed mainly in Peru and Bolivia’ (p.63). Finally: ‘In the peak

period the [Inca] empire included the present-day Peru, Ecuador, Bolivia, and the

northern portion of Argentina and Chile’ (pp. 63-64).

The extent of the Shrivijaya empire also varies, but from chapter to chapter, may

be for a good reason. In the chapter on Southeast Asian civilizations, it is stated

to include ‘Java, Sumatra, Bali and Malay peninsula, parts of Siam (modern

Thailand) and the islands of Philippines’ (p.89). But when the focus is on the

rising glory of the Chola empire in chapter 11, the Shrivijaya empire appears in a

rather modest light: ‘Shrivijaya Empire included Sumatra, Java, and the Malaya

Peninsula’ (p.108).

The Byzantine empire is supposed to have been ‘spread over the regions of the

eastern Europe, Turkey, Syria, Palestine, Israel, and North Africa’ : ‘until 1453,

when Ottomoman Turks captured it’ (pp. 68-69). In fact, much of this area had

slipped out of Byzantine control much before 1453.

There are similar inaccuracies about the achievement of the great Ferdinand

Magellan, whose name is consistently mis-spelt as ‘Megellan’ (pp. 159, 160,

162), just as we have, equally consistently, ‘Moctezuma’ for Montezuma and

‘Olmac civilization’ for ‘Olmec civilization’ (pp. 60, 62, 63).

Magellan, we are told, reached and was killed at a place we did not know

existed: ‘the Island of Philippines’. One thought that Philippine was the collective

name for the over 7000 islands of the Malay Archipelago Northeast of Borneo

and Philippines the name of the country.

Then there is a reference to ‘Megellan’s circumnavigation of the earth’. How

could he, when he did not live to reach Spain? In fact, as is well known, the first

circumnavigation of the world was completed under Sebastian del Cano, who

took command on Magellan’s death.

Historical time fares no better than historical space in the NCERT text. A totally

false picture of the human past of the New World is conveyed in the statement

that ‘the earliest date for human occupation of the region goes back to the first

millennium BC’ (p.63). ‘Human occupation of the region’ in fact dates from

several millennia earlier; in Peru itself, incipient farming began latest by the third

millennium BC.

Likewise, Ahoms are stated (p.96) to have been the rulers of Assam during a

period (c. AD 700 – c. AD 1200), which in fact is known as pre-Ahom! But it is in

the chapterization of the book that one sees what may only be termed a callow

disregard for chronology. After the chapter on Delhi Sultanate there is one

entitled ‘India in the Fifteenth Century’. It deals with a number of states, the life-

span of hardly any of which was confined to the fifteenth century. The entire

course of Vijayanagara history, for instance, is treated in this chapter. There is a

reference to the founding of the Vijayanagara state in AD 1336, but no reference

to the battle of Talikota in 1565 that signalled its effective demise as a dominant

power. This lack of reference to Vijayanagara’s post – 15th century history is,

however, compensated for by a special information in a box on p.132, which tells

us that it was ruled by four dynasties ‘for four hundred years’. As the kingdom is

declared to have come into existence in AD 1336, the student would naturally

think that it lasted till about AD 1736!

In a similar fashion, the chapter on Mughals is followed by one on ‘India in the

Eighteenth Century’, where one finds a lengthy section on the Marathas relating

only to Shivaji, who died in AD 1680, i.e. well before the onset of the eighteenth

century.

Above all, it is after this history of the eighteenth century that we have a chapter

on 15th-16th century Europe. That is to say, in terms of the sequence of the book’s

contents, European Companies set up shop in India first (p.142), the Cape of

Good Hope is rounded later (p.160).

There are a host of other types of mistakes besides, often a combination of

ignorance and prejudice. It must be clearly understood that ours is not a routine

case of sundry mistakes creeping into an otherwise standard text – dust them off

and it will shine! The sheer weight of their numbers is overwhelming, but it is the

nature of individual mistakes that is perhaps more revealing of the hopeless

situation. Who would not, after all, despair of an author who gets the identity of

Alberuni wrong, making a ‘Persian scholar’ (p.98) of the celebrity scientist from

Khwarazm who wrote in Arabic? Or who takes valangais and idangais to be

merchant groups: ‘The merchant classes were divided into Velangais and

Idangais‘ (p.132). The two terms stand for the well-known Right-Hand and Left-

Hand groups of non-brahman jatis in the caste system of South India, dating

back to medieval times. The former includes mainly agricultural castes, the later

artisanal ones.

Equally breathtaking are the designation of Noah as a prophet (p.163) and of the

Black Stone in Kaaba as the ‘most important’ of ‘a number of Gods (sic) and

Goddesses (sic) in icon (sic) form’ (p.73). But when the Pamir plateau can be

placed in the west of Central Asia (p.78) and the third-century BC rulers of Chin

dynasty can be made to succeed the Tang and the Sung dynasties (seventh to

the thirteenth centuries AD) of China (p.83), almost anything would go.2 It is thus

entirely possible that Afzal Khan, ‘an officer of Bijapur, the Mughal viceroy of the

2 Such pearls of wisdom are not confined to the History unit (Unit II) of the book, with which alone we are concerned at the moment. The Glossary at the end of the book explains ‘begging’ as ‘work taken from an individual without payment of wages’! I thought ‘begging’ must be a mistake for ‘begar’ but could not see how it could have been a misprint for ‘begar’. But after reading what the Civics unit (Unit III) has to say on the matter (‘Begging and other forms of forced labour ‘are prohibited’, p.192), I have now a clue. The concerned learned author(s) must have taken ‘begar’ as the incorrect spelling of ‘beggar’; and as ‘beggar and other forms of forced labour’ is bad English, a second correction followed, resulting in this priceless nugget: ‘Begging and other forms of forced labour are prohibited? Correspondingly, ‘begar’ was emended as ‘begging’ in the Glossary, but the original gloss was retained.

Deccan’ (p.148), served both the Bijapur state and the Mughal empire; it does

not matter if his Mughal connection has so far eluded historians.

There is an interesting instance of collective improvement of the new NCERT

books on the shared wisdom of the old ones. The earlier Class VII and Class XI

NCERT books on medieval India, written by Romila Thapar and Satish Chandra

respectively, include only the Maldives among the conquests of the Chola king

Rajaraja I; the new ones, by Sima Yadav and by Meenakshi Jain, add

Lakshadweep to that. It is only natural to wonder whether this is a product of new

research or restoration of old knowledge about our ancient ‘glory’ by the young

‘nationalist’ historians, undoing the damage – as they would claim – by the old

‘leftist’ ones.

In fact, the later inscriptions of Rajaraja, known to historians for a long time, refer

to the ‘old islands of the sea numbering 12,000’ among his conquests. K.A.

Nilakanta Sastri, in his classic The Colas, correctly identified this as an allusion to

the Maldives, because ‘”the king of Maldives [traditionally] assumes the style of

King of the Twelve Thousand Islands’’’3, just as there is the name Lakshadweep

for just over two dozen islands. What Yadav and Jain seem to have done is to

base themselves on the guess in R.S. Tripathi’s History of Ancient India, long

dated, that the reference is to ‘the Lacadives and the Maldives’. Further, what the

Government of India did to its own territory of Lacadive, Minicoy, and Amindivi

3 The Colas, second edition, 1955 (1984 rpt), Madras, pp. 183, 192 n72.

Islands in 1973 by naming it Lakshadweep, NCERT has done to the sovereign

state of Maldives in 2003 by naming it Maldweep.4

Several other departures from the old NCERT books consist of pure concoctions,

sometimes drawing on communalist mythology, otherwise seeking to feed it.

Thus, the practices of Sati and Purdah are stated to have come into vogue during

the early medieval period (c. AD 700-c. AD 1200) as measures of self-defence

against the roving eyes of the Muslim invaders (p. 99). These baseless claims

about the history of the two evils have in fact been old tricks in the ideological hat

of Muslim-baiters, not confined to historians alone, where the actual evidence is

deliberately suppressed. This is seen, for instance, in a standard text on the play

Abhijnanashakuntalam that is very popular among the undergraduate students of

Sanskrit. When Shankuntala appears with an avagunthana (veil) in V.13, the

translator-commentator, a Sanskrit teacher, goes into a detailed exposition of the

term, arguing that this reference does not bear out the existence of Purdah

system in ancient India, that avagunthana was not Purdah but just ‘Ghoonghat’

meant for shielding the woman’s eyes only, and that the Purdah system in fact

dates from the time of the Muslims (called ‘Yavanas’)5. Just a few pages later,

however, avagunthana occurs again, in a context that leaves no doubt about its

being a veil for at least the whole face, when Gautami asks Shakuntala not to

4 For the great antiquity of the name Diva/Divi for Maldive islands, see the references and discussion in Henry Yule and A.C. Burnell, Hobson-Jobson, new edition edited by William Crooke, 1886, 1994 rpt, Rupa & Co., New Delhi, sv Maldives, Maldive Islds, pp. 546-548.5 Abhijnanashakuntalam, with translation and commentary by Dr Surendradeva Shastri, Allahabad, 1967, pp. 284-85.

feel shy and proceeds to remove her avagunthana so that her husband, King

Dushyanta, may recognize her. This time, the editor briefly explains the term as

meaning ‘Ghoonghat’, and moves on6! In fact, there is good indication in the play

that avagunthana was a veil for more than the lady’s face. Earlier, with the

avagunthana on, the king was not able to appreciate her figure

(natiparisphutashariralavanya); later on, with the veil removed, he could notice

evident signs of her pregnancy (abhivyaktasattvalakshana)7. At all events, the

self-defence-from-Muslim theory of the origin of Purdah can hardly explain (but

social anthropology can, quite lucidly,) why Hindu women should practise it within

the household, against their fathers-in-law and elder brothers of their husbands.

The false statements on Sati and Purdah are in fact made part of a wider pattern

of Indian history, equally misleading and more insidious. The pattern may be

seen in the contrasting ways in which society is portrayed for the ‘Hindu’ and the

‘Muslim’ periods.

The following is what Yadav has to say about society in the pre-Muslim periods:

In the previous class we have read that the society was comprised of four

varnas. These varnas were further subdivided into several jatis.

6 Ibid, pp. 296-298.7 Ibid, pp. 284, 299.

The law givers of this period followed the earlier marriage rules.

Remarriage was also permitted during this period. Women had the right to

inherit property. After coming into Muslim contact there began the purdah

system. The practice of sati became more prevalent to save themselves

from falling into the hands of invaders.

There was no significant change in the pattern of living. Sculptures depict

various types of dresses and ornaments. People followed different types

of social activities such as fairs, festivals and pilgrimages to sacred places

and centers.

(p.99, North India, AD 700 – 1200)

The Brahmans enjoyed the good will of kings and respect of people

because of their high moral character and learning. The traders and

artisans commanded greater esteem in society than the officials of the

state. Different sections of society joined together for common purposes.

The cooperation among the people was visible in the functioning of

different village assemblies. Women were held in great honour and

enjoyed freedom. They were imparted education in various branches of

learning and fine arts.

(p.110, South India, AD 700 – 1200)

The society of Vijayanagara was organized on the system of varna. The

kings considered it their duty to protect and promote the social order

based on varnashrama system. The merchant classes were divided into

Velangais and Idangais. Women occupied honourable positions and

were educated. Windows could remarry.

(p.132 ‘The society of Vijayanagara’)

And this is what Yadava has to teach our children about society during the

Sultanate and the Mughal periods:

The society consisted mainly of Muslim and Hindu population. The

Muslims formed the ruling class who belonged to Sunni and Shia sects.

Majority of them belonged to foreign countries. Ibn Battutah praises

hospitality of the Hindus and says that the caste rules were strictly

followed in marriages. The freedom of women was much restricted.

Purdah became common in the society. There were also a large number

of slaves in the services of Delhi Sultans. In this regard the record of Firoz

Shah Tughlaq is notable. He had in his pay-rolls about 1,80,000 slaves.

(p.122, Sultanate)

The general nature of the society continued as before. The Mughal nobility

along with landlords formed the upper section of society. These were

mainly Turanis, Iranis, Afghans, Shaikzadas and a few Rajputs. They

received high salaries but their habits were also extravagant and they

lived a life of great pomp and luxury.

(p. 142, Mughal)

The messages this kind of history teaching would send out are already being

spelt out, loud and clear, by the apologists:

‘In every department of life, whether economy or polity or gender equity or

industry or trade or scientific research or music or medicine or

environment awareness ….. ancient [i.e. pre-Muslim] period was the most

glorious epoch in India’s history.’ (J.S. Rajput, dots as in the original,

conveying probably the endlessly glorious character of the period.)

‘IHC stalwarts protest that “the dark corners of the medieval [i.e. Muslim]

era” have been brought into the light. In all objectivity, this should not be

surprising as the period had few redeeming features’ (Sandhya Jain,

emphases added).

Yadav has taken real pains to leave no doubt about the messages. For instance,

immediately after a reference to Razia Sultan, a special information is put in a

box: ‘Razia was the first and the last woman Muslim ruler of the medieval world’

(p.117). The purpose is evidently to prevent the student from being misled by

Razia’s instance about the actual relation between Islam and women, in contrast

to that between Hinduism and women.!

The first point is of course that this statement about Razia having been the lone

medieval Muslim woman ruler is wrong. Students of Indian history have for long

known several Muslim women rulers in the medieval world. Thus Ishwari Prasad:

The sovereignty of females was not unknown to Islam. The Muslim world

was familiar with the Khwarizm princesses, Malika Turkan and Turkan

Khatun, who exercised more complete sway than Razia ever did. Even in

the 13th century there were Muslim queens ruling Egypt and Persia.

The more relevant point is that this statement on Razia Sultan is apparently an

exercise in deliberate falsehood. On p. 138 it is stated: ‘At that time Ahmadnagar

was ruled by the famous queen Chand Bibi’.

To take another such instance of mis-representing well-established facts of

history, Yadav contends that it was ‘under pressure [that] Aurangzeb recognized

Shivaji as Raja’ (p.149); the point is further sought to be drilled into the student

through an exercise at the end. As we all know, however, Aurangzeb was never

able to reconcile himself to recognizing the ground realities in the Deccan. His

recognition of Shivaji as a raja was a consequence not of any pressure but of a

clever tactical move on Shivaji’s part, when he needed time and peace to

strengthen his bases of power. He sought pardon and offered ‘to make his

submission again’, whereupon Aurangzeb, on the recommendation of Jaswant

Singh and Prince Muazzam, ‘recognized Shiva’s title of Rajah’.8

It is the same with the history of Mewar. Again the most egregious error is

reserved for the box, where one reads: ‘The kings of Mewar used the title of

Rana instead of Raja. Rana means a “mighty warrior”. This title was given to

Bappa Rana. After him, all his successors used this title’ (p. 130). As per sober

history, however, Rana is derived from ranaka, which in turn is believed to derive

from rajanaka. None means a ‘mighty warrior’. A major figure, though not the

founder, of Guhila dynasty was called Bappa Rawal, and not Bappa Rana. It was

several rulers down the line, during the twelfth century, that a division of titles

occurred: ‘The successors of Kshemasinha were known as Raval or Rajakula,

and the successors of Rahapa [brother of Kshemasinha], who ruled as vassals of

the Ravals at Sisoda, were known as Ranas’.9

There are then the usual, and characteristic, errors. It is stated: ‘It was Rana

Kumbha who freed Mewar from the Sultanate and conquered [i.e. destroyed the

8 Jadunath Sarkar, Shivaji and His Times, fourth edn. 1948 (Orient Longman, 1973), pp. 161-62.9 History and Culture of Indian People, V, p.89.

freedom of] several other states’ (p.129, emphasis added). In fact, Mewar was

freed from the Sultanate control immediately after Alauddin’s conquest, by one

Hammira in the 14th century rather than by Rana Kumbha in the 15th century.

Further on, Mewar is called ‘the only state which never accepted the sovereignty

of the Mughals’ (p. 138, emphasis added). Yet on the same page in the same

paragraph, one reads: ‘Mewear could not be completed subjugated till Maharana

Pratap’s death. Besides Malwa and Mewar, Akbar also conquered Gujarat ….’.

On the next page there is a somewhat muted reference to the complete

subjugation as the end of ‘the long struggle between Mewar and the Mughals’.

The fiction of the always independent Mewar, however, returns on p. 152:

‘Mewar was never with Mughals’ (emphasis added). In fact, Mewar held out

against the Mughal empire for almost 18 long yeares after the death of Maharana

Pratap in 1597 – sot the statement about ‘till Maharana Pratap’s death’ is

misleading. But when peace was concluded, ‘bought rather than won’ by the

Mughals in the words of Thomas Roe, Mewar remained with the Mughals from

1615 onwards till 1680 when it defied Mughal authority before being made to

submit to it again.

The above is but a small sample of what the book actually contains, but the

bottomline is that even the above does not take us to the depth to which history-

writing has been sunk in this publication of a National Council. Professor

Makkhan Lal’s Ancient India has been shown to be guilty of plagiarism; our

present text goes one better, and lifts chunks, including the plagiarized ones,

from Prof. Lal’s text! We may conclude with an illustration:

India and the World Makkhan Lal’s Ancient India

‘The period between the death of

Harsha in the mid-seventh century

A.D., and the establishment of Delhi

Sultanate in the twelfth century A.D.,

covers a span of over five hundred

years. These centuries witnessed

some important developments such as:

(i) ‘Rise of important kingdoms in

eastern, central, southern and

northern India. However, these

acted as a bridge between different

regions because the cultural

traditions of these kingdoms

remained stable even though they

often fought among themselves.

(ii) ‘There remained a continuity in the

field of economy, social structure,

ideas and beliefs. This was

perhaps because the changes in

‘The period after the death of Harsha in

the mid-seventh century A.D., and the

establishment of Delhi Sultanate in the

twelfth century A.D., covers a span of

600 years. These six centuries witnessed

some important events such as-

(i) ‘The rise of important kingdoms in

eastern, central, and southern India

which were as important as north

Indian kingdoms during this period.

Some of them were not only the

powerful kingdoms of the time, but

also acted as a bridge between

north and south.

(ii) The cultural traditions of this

kingdom remained stable even

though they often fought among

themselves.

these areas took place more

gradually than the changes in

political spheres. The close

interaction among various regions

resulted in the formation of definite

forms of some common cultural

trends which can be seen in the

literature, education, art and

architecture of the period.’ (pp. 92-

93)

(iii) ‘There remained a continuity in the

field of economy, social structure, ideas

and beliefs. This was perhaps because

the changes in these areas take place

more gradually than the changes in

political structure. The close interaction

among the various regions of India led to

the crystallisation of common cultural

trends, seen in the literature, education,

and art and architecture of the period.’ (p.

211)