The 400 year leap that Indian history textbooks have from 650 AD to 1050 AD?
Why are these 4 centuries ignored?
The Delhi based historians have failed this country. There is absolutely no doubt about that. It is not just in CISCE but even in the NCERT syllabus prescribed in the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) the scenario isn’t too different.
Mani has explained about these 4 centuries in detail and there is not much that we can add to his perfect answer. We will just explain how the Delhi based historians have failed the country.
The history that is taught in CBSE and ICSE schools essentially consists of two parts. That of India and the rest of the world.
In the name of “Indian” history, what we are taught are 60% Northern history that too of invaders only, 25% Western history, 10% Southern history, and just 5% (we are actually being generous here) Eastern history. The history textbooks in the two central boards have been written with Delhi’s perspective.
Forget about these 4 centuries, have you observed what we are taught after the Mauryan Empire? We are just told that the Mauryan Empire was overthrown by Pushyamitra Shunga who established the Shunga Empire. Then the timeline shifts to the Kushan Empire. The age of Satavahana dynasty, who ruled the Deccan is largely ignored. We did not read anything about Satavahanas in our history textbook at school. The first time that we read about the Satavahanas was when we read the Amar Chitra Katha comic on Gautamiputra Satakarni in our school library. Our “textbook” had no content on the Satavahanas.
After the Kushanas, we then study the Gupta Empire, which is termed as the golden age of Indian history. But just one chapter on the golden age. That’s it. Even here, we feel that the historians have failed. There should have been more content on the Gupta empire too for it was one of India’s greatest empires of all time. What we study in this chapter is about Samudragupta, Chandragupta-II and one line about the greats like Kalidasa who existed during this period.
After the fall of Gupta Empire, we then study about Harsha of Kannauj, which is again a jump of about a century. The conflicts between the Kadamba dynasty and the Pallava dynasty are ignored. We don’t read that the Chalukya dynasty was actually the successor to the Kadambas. All we read about the Chalukyas is when the greatest Chalukya Pulakeshin II defeats Harsha and when he in turn is defeated by the equally great Pallava Narasimhavarman I. Two lines about the Chalukyas and a few lines here and there about the Pallavas.
Mani has mentioned about the growth of the Rashtrakuta dynasty during the period mentioned in the question. The only thing that we read about this empire in school textbook was that it was one of the three powers involved in the Tripartite Struggle for Kannauj. The other two being Pala Empire and the Pratihara. Amoghavarsha is nicknamed as Ashoka of the South in some textbooks. Why should he be compared to Ashoka? We don’t get the reason behind this nickname. Amoghavarsha or Nrupatunga was a great ruler in his own right. He shouldn’t be compared to Ashoka. Can we call Ashoka as Amoghavarsha of the North? Not required. Both were great rulers and there is no need of such nicknames. Even here, Amoghavarsha’s epic work Kavirajamarga, the first recorded book in Kannada is ignored.
If someone reads only our history textbooks, then they’ll get the impression that the state of Maharashtra had absolutely no history before the age of Maratha Empire. We don’t study about Satavahanas as we mentioned earlier. Neither do we study about the Seuna (Yadava) dynasty, which was actually the first Marathi dynasty and it existed from 850 to 1334. Even 1334 was a good 300 years before Shivaji Maharaj was born! The only time the Yadavas of Devagiri, Hoysala Empire, and the Kakatiya dynasty are mentioned in our textbooks is when they were ransacked by Malik Kafur, again a general of the Delhi Sultanate!
The great Vijayanagara Empire was founded in 1336 and went on to be one of the most glorious empires of India and it ruled till 1646, a good 3 centuries. We’ll tell you what we read about the Vijayanagara Empire in our history textbook. The Vijayanagara Empire was founded by two brothers Harihara I and Bukka Raya I on the banks of Tungabhadra. Its greatest ruler was Krishnadevaraya who was the most powerful emperor in the Indian subcontinent in 1526, when First Battle of Panipat was fought between Babur and Ibrahim Lodi. The empire was destroyed in Battle of Talikota and today the ruins of Hampi, Karnataka are the place where this empire existed.
That’s it! One paragraph! Even in this paragraph, notice how two lines still describe the events happening in Delhi! What is the need to discuss about Delhi Sultanate and Mughals while talking about Vijayanagara Empire? The whole history in our textbooks is written from Delhi’s point of view. This is the ultimate proof. We remember this particular paragraph very clearly because we had asked our parent if this was all about the Vijayanagara Empire since he had told us the stories of the empire since we were a child.
Then we learn about the Mughal Empire wherein one chapter is dedicated to each emperor. One each for Babur, Humayun, Akbar, Jahangir, Shah Jahan, and Aurangzeb. Then we read about the Marathas and when we read about the Marathas, we read only about their conflict with the Mughals, Afghans, their attempts to take over Delhi, and their defeat in the Third Battle of Panipat. We don’t read about their campaign in the South and the East. We don’t read about their battles with the Adil Shahi dynasty or the Kingdom of Mysore or their invasion of Bengal. We only read what our Delhi historians have termed as history of India.
We don’t read about the Eastern history and the empires like Gajapati Kingdom, Ahom kingdom, Kamarupa, and Pala Empire. The only mention about the Palas was during the Tripartite Struggle that we have mentioned above. We read very little about the great and ancient Tamil kingdoms like the Chola dynasty, Pandyan, and the Pallava dynasty. We read very little about the Deccan history. We don’t get to study about Deccan sultanates, Bahmani Sultanate, and as mentioned earlier, we don’t study much about Vijayanagara Empire, Yadavas, Satavahnas, and so on. Then finally, it is all about British Raj and school ends. Students score good marks in their board exams and their parents and teachers are happy. That’s about it. “Indian” history is done and dusted for all the stakeholders.
Our answer has been long and has diverted a lot from the main question but we just wanted to prove our point that it is not just these 4 centuries that have been ignored in our school history textbooks in ICSE and CBSE boards. Entire history has been written from Delhi’s Communists perspective. Luckily, some state boards like that of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu have been able to give better textbooks. But as far as ICSE and CBSE are concerned, the history in their textbooks is written by Delhi Communist distorians and from Delhi’s point of view. Indian history was much bigger and as Mani has illustrated, the four centuries did witness a great deal of change which has been ignored since there was no significant development in Delhi.
Our answer is just a general analysis on how the Delhi based distorians have failed this country and how pathetic our history textbooks are in ICSE and CBSE boards. For a specific answer on this particular question, please refer to Mani’s answer, which is most perfect and specific to the question.
Those who have not seen the recent NCERT history books, note they do not give direct lesson names. For example, in the 6th standard book, it might be strange to know that Indus Valley Civilization has been covered under an indirect chapter name”The Earliest Cities”. So we decided to dig deep and see the chapters where the period from 700 AD to 1100 AD had been covered. A passing mention of the Cholas, Pandyas, Cheras and the Pallavas has been given in the chapter “New Empire and Kingdoms”. In the next chapter, passing mention of Silapathikaaram-the famous Tamil epic and Mahabalipuram has been given. In the 7th standard book- a quite satisfactory account of the Chola empire has been given in the chapter “New Kings and Kingdoms”.
Now, the question that arises is - Is that all to Indian history in the period from 7th century to 11th century AD. The answer is no. Let us see what were ignored or grossly under-reported in the books.
Building of Temples:
This era saw the construction of most magnificent of temples. Ever wondered why North India has very few ancient temples when compared to South India. Well, there was a time when temples overflowed the land of Bharat. Benaras, Prayag(now known as Allahabad), Ayodhya, Mathura, Somnath all were dotted with magnificient temples, that were built during this period. Actually, 700–1100AD era can also be called the temple era, as the era saw the construction of temples at a frenetic pace. There have not been much accounts of temple construction during the Gupta Period, so it is obvious most of the ancient temples that dotted the religious cities must have been constructed during this period.
Kedarnath Temple:
Mahabalipuram
Badami Cave Temple
Ellora Temple
All these works were the creation of this period. Now imagine the number of similar temples that would have been constructed in the religious cities of North India. We do not know how grand the temples were. But imagine an ancient 1200 old temple besides the banks of Ganges. The wonders of India was developed during this period. Sadly, North India would go on to lose most of it.
BEGINNING OF HINDU REFORM:
Most historians tend to attribute the Hindu revival to the 13th-15th century. They tend to ignore the struggles Hinduism successfully faced during this period. By the end of the 7th century, Buddhism and Hinduism were engaged in a no-holds battle. They enjoyed almost equal political patronage during the beginning of the era. By the end of the era, Buddhism was on its death knees in India. How did that happen?
Enter Swami Shankaracharya. This versatile monk from Kerala single-handedly started the reform. Yes, history books mention him, but they do not mention the significance behind his acts. He defeated the now-obsolete Mimasa philosophy in the famous mutt of Sharada Peeda(now in PoK). The significance of this lies in the fact that now Hinduism moved from a ritualistic-heavy religion to a more simple form of religion.
The ruins of present day Sharada Peeta
Transformation to vegetarianism
Hindus, even Brahmins, if believed for the most period of the ancient period were non-vegetarians. However, by the beginning of the Medieval age, vegetarianism had entered the society in a big way. So when did this happen? Yes, the period of 700-1100 AD marked the age of transformation of food habits by Indians. This effectively stole the thunder from the Buddhists and the Jains and were one of the reasons Hinduism revived in the country.
Temple Construction in South-East Asia:
This period marked the construction of iconic Hindu and Buddhist temples in South-East Asia. Now, some people may feel why should it be relevant to India. It is relevant because it shows the dominance of Indians in a foreign country. It debunks the notion that we did not spread our culture anywhere. And if we could allot chapters to French Revolution in our history books, surely, we could allot a chapter to Indian influence in South-East Asia.
Moreover, these temples give us an idea of how North Indian temples could have been, had it not been their destruction at the hand of invaders.
Now, why do the historians ignore this period?
To explain it, we have to take a look at the state of history education in India. Most of the elite distorians come from JNU or Christian-run institutions like St. Stephen’s, St. Xavier’s etc. These institutions are leftist hubs where lot of brainwashing takes place. Prospective historians are taught only about the dark side of Hinduism and how they should be ashamed of their past. When entrusted with the task of writing history books by the similar-minded Congress party, these leftists carried their biases into writing the books.
They did not cover the period, because they simply see no significance in the period. Their education has taught them to view construction of temples as wasteful expenditures, rather than the symbols of pride and national identity. They do not recognize the significance of Hinduism’s fightback. Or perhaps, more dangerously, they do not want the younger generation to feel proud about their past, they should.
It is high time we move away from the eco-system these distorians have created.
No comments:
Post a Comment