By Sebastian Rodrigues
I had a privilege of attending lecture by Romila Thapar at Goa University yesterday 5th July 2013. Her lecture was titled “Contours in reading early Indian History”. At the end of the lecture more confusion was proliferating all over Goa rather than clarity. I think it is my duty to arrest these intellectual confusions at this stage.
Romila Thapar has certain erroneous assumptions which are integrated into her presentation. Here I list them out.
1. Romila Thapar remarked “at the time of Indian Independence 60 years ago….” She assumes Indian independence took place in 1947 while in reality it was just a transfer of power from British to Brahmins. Gandhi and Nehru just used India’s mulnivasi people for the sake of freedom of Brahmins who are Eurasian Invaders. It cannot be expected that Romila Thapar to be naïve to this reality, yet she played along. Why?
2. Romila Thapar further remarked that she is not able to grasp as to why there is obsession to prove Aryan foundation of Indian civilization even though there is no evidence suggesting this in both the cases of Harrappa and Mohen-jo-daro. If Aryans - who are also known as Brahmins and of late discovered their Eurasian Origin since DNA testings by Michael Bamshad of Utah University – want to dominate contemporary politics then it is important to have control over history. Control over past is important in order to establish control over present and control over future. Romila Thapar left this aspect without a closure and played along the gallery. Why?
3. Romila Thapar remarked that in nineteenth century there were no Buddhists. And that’s the reason the polarization of Indian history has been between Hindus and Muslims. Where did Buddhists go? Who massacred them? Did they change their religion? Why there is an antagonistic polarization between Hindus and Muslims as a project of history? Romila Thapar left grounds uncovered and considering her scholarship it could not have skipped her attention that the word ‘Hindu’ means ‘Black, Thief, and Slave’ and Brahmins objected to the use of this terms ‘Hindu’ during Mughal rule and Brahmins themselves collaborated with Mughals who were Muslims in order to rule India for nearly 750 years. Under this rule lots of mulnivasi people whose ancestors had revolted against Brahmanism through intellectual amour of Buddhism converted to Islam. Mughals were foreigners by race and were Muslims by religion. They are acceptable to Brahmins while India’s mulnivasis who converted to Islam are not. The reason? Buddhism destroyed the backbone of Brahminism in India and sent it into coma. It then changed its name into Hinduism. It is a mask to cover up Brahmanism. Obsession of historians with Hindu-Muslim clash is essentially to cover up Brahmin-Buddhists clash through out India for the past 2500 years. The following link to the book written by Hon.Waman Meshram explains it: http://bharatmukti.blogspot.in/2012/07/brahmin-dharma-is-conspiracy-to-make.html . Romila Thapar, the towering intellectual could not be unaware of these facts, yet she chose to play around.
4. Anther assumption she skillfully inserted in her lecture was that the tribal chiefs in order to assimilate into Hinduism converted to become Kshatriyas and the members of the tribes became slaves and even untouchables. There is a skilful attempt at distortion here. First of all assimilation was not into Hindusim. Assimilation was into Brahmanism. Scholars with their vested interests avoid using this word of Brahmanism in order to mask the truth instead of revealing it. They instead use the words ‘Hinduism’ and ‘Sanskritization’. Secondly will tribes that were free would be willing to be assimilated into brahminism and convert themselves into slaves and untouchables without co-ersion? Romila Thapar makes us believe so. To suit what purpose? History is never neutral. It is always a weapon to assault and to defend. Whom does Romila Thapar attacks and whom does she defends?
5. Romila Thapar points that there were disputes over land allocation in ancient India as the land was allocated by the State to brahmins and their temples. How can State allocate lands to Brahmins and their temples unless brahmins have control over State by some legitimate or illegitimate means?
6. Romila Thapar also remarked that Ambekar projected the history from dalits in his book on Shudras. The reality is that Dr. Ambedkar never used the word ‘dalit’ any where in his book on shudras or any other book. This word was used first by Babu Jagjivan Ram who was a stooge of Brahmins and used as a tool against Dr.Ambedkar. Dr.Ambedkar used the word Schuduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes and Other backward classes. Could not understand the insensitivity of Romila Thapar on this aspect.
7. Romila Thapar also remarked that Aryan is language and not race identity. If this was true then why Dayanand Saraswati founded Arya Samaj to counter Satyashodak Samaj of Jyotibha Phule in 1870s? If Aryan is a language then where is the dictionary of that language? What is the script of that language? Romila Thapar again plays some games here.
8. Romila Thapar focused on administration of Ashoka and Maurya rulers but skipped treacherous origin of rule of Pushamitra Sungh. Why there is so much less focus on his rule? Is it because it marks counter revolution of the Brahmins against the rule of Bhahujans established though Buddha’s revolution? Romila Thapar skillfully plays with history.
9. Romila Thapar also pointed that there were fierce debates outside the village boundary between the Brahmins and non-brahmins. Why should intensity pick up in these debates if they were not serious? Romila herself points to the categories of the debaters as clearly Brahmins. What is the origin of Brahmins? It is manusmriti. Brahmins enjoy all previlleges and Shudras are their slaves. And big game Romila Thapar played is that she did not even mention that Manusmriti exists and that is the doctrine of power and awe of Brahmins. Romila Thapar pointed out that Rigveda and Mahabharata considers women as Chandals and Slaves. How come then she skipped to also point out that Manusmriti also declares all the women, including women from Brahmin homes – wives, mothers, daughters – as slaves (Shudra) ? Why Romila Thapar avoided criticizing Manusmriti ?
10. Romila Thapar sent out clear pointer that as per Mahabharata women are commodity that is either to be donated in Kanyadan or she is to be abducted. Kanyadan is a state policy of Goa government and there are budgetary allocation for this purpose, hence Goa government is as brahmanical as Mahabharata.
11. Romila Thapar spoke about cultural assimilation. However she did not explain as to why only Brahmanical extension of control over other is camouflaged as cultural assimilation. Whose culture assimilates whom? What is the political project involved here?
12. Romila Thapar referred to text of Harshcharika that provides explanation that in order to clear forest into fields untouchability was instituted there by ensuring permanent labor supply. Romila however did not explain as to why brahmins always remained touchable and mulnivasis remained untouchables. Who was deciding as to who should be touchable and who should be untouchable? This insertion is mischievous in order to hide the glorious resistance of Mahars and other groups against Brahmins and due to the resistance Brahmins created the system of untouchability.
13. Romila Thapar also suggested that environmental factors are responsible for the decline of the Harrappan civilization and not the Aryan invasion. Romila disputed the theory of Aryan invasion. Her disputations and assertions are loaded with politics as the case with any historian. Can destruction of Goa’s mountains and rivers through iron ore, manganese, bauxite mining not be the cause of decline of Goa and its people? Can not the uncontrolled tourism that is galloping huge tracks of lands by force and by lure of cash not be down fall of Goa and its people? Can’t it be that open discharge of sewage waters into the Mandovi river by hotels and casinos not be down fall of Goa and its people? Did Harrappan environment changed without human intervention?
14. Romila Thapar also noted that model of Four Varna was not a reality. She however did not labout to explain as to why it was not a reality. Was it not reality after construction of model through Manusmriti or after that? Was it not a reality before Buddha’s and Mahavira’s revolt or after that. Was not jati system a reality? Did not Brahmin deliberate attempt to fragment mulnivasi people from single identity of Shudra which they themselves had created after the colossal collapse of Brahminism via Bhuddha’s revolt? Romila Thapar certainly played around with interpretations here. Her interpretations are meant to buttress the brahminism in India.
15. Romila Thapar made her audience wonder as to how Khatris dominated north India and Brahmins in Tamilnadu? Does it really matter to mulnivasi people as both these are Eurasians and proved by Michael Bamshad’s study in 2001. Romila Thapar will continue to play around till other voices with whom she is playing around do not speak their history and allows brahminical historians to manipulate and control their history, politics and destiny.
16. Odd comment came from Goa Governor Wanchu who said that lectures like these must help to solve the problems of poverty and illiteracy. Governor perhaps is unaware that illiteracy and poverty are by-products of Brahmanism and they are destined to proliferate till the demise of Brahmanism and rise of mulnivasi rule in India. For no brahmins are illiterate and poor. Why should ruling brahminical powers do away with illiteracy and poverty? They have carefully nurtured it since they captured power 65 years ago. Centrist Congress, Leftist Communists and Rightists BJP represent brahminism in its varied avatars with common agendas that are against mulnivasi people of India.