Thakur Prasad Verma and Arvind Kumar Singh's 2011 Inscriptions of the Gāhaḍavālas and their times (published by Aryan Books International, New Delhi) is interesting for at least three reasons.
First, it is an instance of the post-colonial Hindu consciousness, often pejoratively called the 'Hindutva ideology', of a radical disruption of their tradition having taken place. For some, various common aspects of the streams of Hindu tradition -- the caste system, elaborate ritualism, sense of 'religious tolerance', Bhakti orientation, inward-looking outward-bound asceticism etc. -- are factors that prevented complete annihilation (as in Iran or Greece), while for others, these were causes for failure. But despite admission of such shortcomings (the turning away from vaiśeṣika and allied aparāvidyā streams is increasingly being regretted), the Islamic project of Jihad is largely held accountable for this destruction.
Although this new consciousness embraces historical analysis, it is still prone to conflate the various streams of the tradition, and sometimes to even brand Advaita Vedanta as The True, Original, Secret Message of the Vedas. Staal recounts one such amusing instance in his Agni (v. II, p. 469) of lay Hindus having come to attend the yajña as if it were a pūjā; they proceed to the darśan, to do a pradakṣiṇā and then to feeling refreshed with the newly acquired puṇya.
Not only do the authors (Verma was a professor at Banaras Hindu University, Singh taught at Jiwaji, Gwalior; see publisher's page) not make any secret of their sympathy for Hindu sources of history (p. v-vi) while also being grateful for the contributions of Western scholars, they also often criticise Muslim kings who were "proud of ruining and devastating cultures, looting and arson, reducing art treasures and places of worship into ruins" (p. 362). That the yavana, śaka and hūṇa chiefs were "admirers [...] and adherents of Indian religion and society" (p. 361) only goes to confirm for them that it was the Muslims, many of them even "ethnically related to the Hindu folk", uniquely responsible for the damage caused. As an example, they point out the Taj ul-Ma'athir (composed after the defeat of Jayachchandra) which attests to vandalism at the hands of Muslim rulers.
However, the second feature is a frankness that can sometimes be hard to find in mainstream (i.e. Western) Indological publications. For instance, although it becomes clear that both authors are striving to develop a (pro-)Hindu narrative, Verma is reasonably cautious (in chapter 2, concerning political history) and upfront honest about the differing standards as far as interpretation of evidence is concerned. Now there continue to be attempts to trivialise first-hand Muslim testimony itself (typically sanctioned by kings as felicitation on occasions of Islamic victory) and use non sequitors to give the impression that destruction prompted by Islamic ideology was led by mere political instinct (see Tehelka's recent interview of Richard Eaton, for instance).
But it becomes a serious matter when this version of history receives state sanction (Arun Shourie's exposés), as Verma is keen to point out on multiple occasions. Usefully, he also counters Roma Niyogi's excesses in interpretation and builds on the earlier scholarship of RC Majumdar, RS Tripathi and SR Goyal. However, their otherwise reasonable attitude (seen, for instance, in their evaluation of the political implications of land grants to Brahmins) is marred by their rejection of the Aryan Invasion Theory and an ambiguous setting aside of comparative philology.
Thirdly, their work's relative recency is striking because it shows that Hindu scholars have not yet atoned for the mahāpātaka of having rejected Indo-European Studies. Not only should this failure already be profoundly embarrassing for Hindus, but they do not make a serious effort to defend, let alone develop, even the 'classical' system. Are readers to simply nod in pious agreement when Verma asserts that "the Hindu society was laid down on a sound foundation of varṇa and āśrama" (p. 392)? He then brings up the usual fluid-first-rigid-later argument for occupational segregation by caste. Citing a Dharampal or even a GS Ghurye when it comes to defending caste-based hierarchies is not productive.
It may not now be surprising that Verma and Singh's work here, its merits notwithstanding, has not even yet been reviewed in any major journal.
First, it is an instance of the post-colonial Hindu consciousness, often pejoratively called the 'Hindutva ideology', of a radical disruption of their tradition having taken place. For some, various common aspects of the streams of Hindu tradition -- the caste system, elaborate ritualism, sense of 'religious tolerance', Bhakti orientation, inward-looking outward-bound asceticism etc. -- are factors that prevented complete annihilation (as in Iran or Greece), while for others, these were causes for failure. But despite admission of such shortcomings (the turning away from vaiśeṣika and allied aparāvidyā streams is increasingly being regretted), the Islamic project of Jihad is largely held accountable for this destruction.
Although this new consciousness embraces historical analysis, it is still prone to conflate the various streams of the tradition, and sometimes to even brand Advaita Vedanta as The True, Original, Secret Message of the Vedas. Staal recounts one such amusing instance in his Agni (v. II, p. 469) of lay Hindus having come to attend the yajña as if it were a pūjā; they proceed to the darśan, to do a pradakṣiṇā and then to feeling refreshed with the newly acquired puṇya.
Not only do the authors (Verma was a professor at Banaras Hindu University, Singh taught at Jiwaji, Gwalior; see publisher's page) not make any secret of their sympathy for Hindu sources of history (p. v-vi) while also being grateful for the contributions of Western scholars, they also often criticise Muslim kings who were "proud of ruining and devastating cultures, looting and arson, reducing art treasures and places of worship into ruins" (p. 362). That the yavana, śaka and hūṇa chiefs were "admirers [...] and adherents of Indian religion and society" (p. 361) only goes to confirm for them that it was the Muslims, many of them even "ethnically related to the Hindu folk", uniquely responsible for the damage caused. As an example, they point out the Taj ul-Ma'athir (composed after the defeat of Jayachchandra) which attests to vandalism at the hands of Muslim rulers.
However, the second feature is a frankness that can sometimes be hard to find in mainstream (i.e. Western) Indological publications. For instance, although it becomes clear that both authors are striving to develop a (pro-)Hindu narrative, Verma is reasonably cautious (in chapter 2, concerning political history) and upfront honest about the differing standards as far as interpretation of evidence is concerned. Now there continue to be attempts to trivialise first-hand Muslim testimony itself (typically sanctioned by kings as felicitation on occasions of Islamic victory) and use non sequitors to give the impression that destruction prompted by Islamic ideology was led by mere political instinct (see Tehelka's recent interview of Richard Eaton, for instance).
But it becomes a serious matter when this version of history receives state sanction (Arun Shourie's exposés), as Verma is keen to point out on multiple occasions. Usefully, he also counters Roma Niyogi's excesses in interpretation and builds on the earlier scholarship of RC Majumdar, RS Tripathi and SR Goyal. However, their otherwise reasonable attitude (seen, for instance, in their evaluation of the political implications of land grants to Brahmins) is marred by their rejection of the Aryan Invasion Theory and an ambiguous setting aside of comparative philology.
Thirdly, their work's relative recency is striking because it shows that Hindu scholars have not yet atoned for the mahāpātaka of having rejected Indo-European Studies. Not only should this failure already be profoundly embarrassing for Hindus, but they do not make a serious effort to defend, let alone develop, even the 'classical' system. Are readers to simply nod in pious agreement when Verma asserts that "the Hindu society was laid down on a sound foundation of varṇa and āśrama" (p. 392)? He then brings up the usual fluid-first-rigid-later argument for occupational segregation by caste. Citing a Dharampal or even a GS Ghurye when it comes to defending caste-based hierarchies is not productive.
It may not now be surprising that Verma and Singh's work here, its merits notwithstanding, has not even yet been reviewed in any major journal.
/* Citing a Dharampal or even a GS Ghurye when it comes to defending caste-based hierarchies is not productive. */ Are you saying caste based hierarchy is wrong?
ReplyDelete