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.
