A.Karunanandan
From the previous issue
Related articles
About the Content of the Learning Outcome – based Curriculum Framework (LOCF):
We are not against providing proportionate space for Tram India Histories, like Asian History, European History, American History and world History, we are also in favour of limited and qualified ‘Multi-diciplinary’ approach, provided such an approach does not dilute the focus on the core subject.
But our major concern is about the syllabus of papers on India. India’s history as presented in this document, does not reflect its heterogamous foundations and plural character. The ancient History of India and the preceding paper ‘The idea of Bharath’ are more mythology based than through a honest critical analysis of the available sources on a rational basis.
The Idea of Bharath is exclusively built upon Sanskrit mythologies. The entire history of pre-medieval India is presented as if the India’s history is nothing but the expansion and extension of the Vedic order. The multiple contributions to India’s history and culture are deliberately now emphasized; By unhistorically renaming Indus Valley Civilization as Saraswati – Sindhu Civilization, the anonymous authors of the UGC’s LOCF, deny pre Vedic and non-Vedic existence and contributions to our diverse culture. Nowhere else in the world history especially of remote past is thus much distorted. The Greek history did not treat the pre-Greek, pre-hellenic Minoah (Creatan) Civilization as a proto-Greek civilization. The chauvinistic sectarian versions are presented as Vedic ‘Civilization’.
Those events and streams that were opposed to Vedic arrangement are either underplayed or unmentioned. The Mauryan (and the preceding Nandan age too) factors are confined to one or two chapters or subdivisions, whereas those of Guptas are assigned one whole unit (4 sub divisions) and an additional subdivision in the succeeding unit, and the same discrimination is noticed in medieval history. Sivaji, the founder of the Maratha Kingdom is confined to one sub-division while the Peshwas are glorified and assigned one whole unit (Four chapters). The syllabus is biased towards one particular stream. The history of the Gangetic region and culture are projected as ‘national’ history.
Eclipsing Regional Histories
All compulsory papers in core courses and most of the optional papers on India in other segments are north oriented and Sanskrit oriented. This LOCF accommodates foreign histories, but gives no scope to provide reasonable focus on the histories of regions of India. India’s political unity had been an occasional affairs; though socio cultural economic interactions been a regular affair. The largest political unity were witnessed during the days of Asoka, Aurangzeb and the English colonial regimes.
South’s Outstanding Contributions:
But the regions, especially the South India, had been generationg remarkable polities time and again. The Satavahanas reigned over most of the peninsular India and occasionally extended their authority north of the Vindhyas too.
They controlled the territories twice the size of that of the Guptas. They and intense overseas contacts too, The Rashtrakutas, The Vataol and Kalyani Chalutyas too built formidable empires. The Cholas of Tanjore were the only dynasty to build a powerful overseas empire in India. The Hoysalas of Dwarasamudra too come under this category. These so called regional powers reigned larger areas, and made outstanding contributions to literature, art, architecture and fine arts, and to various schools of religion.
The Dravidian style of architecture, quantitatively and qualitatively, are far superior to those north Indian dynasties. But the UGC’s LOCF does not provide for exclusive papers on regional histories. Instead it deceptively clubs the regional dynasties into subdivisions. The Sunga, Kanva, Kushana, Indo-Bactrian and Satavahana dynasties are compressed into a single subdivision, i.e. one fourth of a unit.
The UGC’s LOCF is so reckless to mention cholas of Tanjore as Cholas of Kanchi. Thousand years of pre Kalabhra Tamil history is confined to a single subdivision. The South role against European and English colonisers is totally eclipsed and the social emancipation movements in the peninsular India finds no genuine mention in the syllabus. The LOCF takes care to mention Tilak and Madan Mohan Malaviya, but avoid any reference to Vaikutasamy, Vallalar, Phule, Narayana Guru, Ayyankali, Periyar and others by name. Dr. Ambedkar’s name is mentioned only as a maker of Constitution. Large scale social movements are underplayed, But the same LOCF syllabus lists out three papers on Delhi (Ancient, medieval and modern. Delhi’s ancient history (as Indraprasta) is built upon mythologies. At that time it had never been capital of a larger kingdom or a centre of philosophical or religious or cultural activities. There were other cities which played a better and longer roles in history i.e. Pataliputra, Takshasila, Calcutta, Warrangal, Dwarasamudra, Tanjore, Madurai etc. Infact Madurai in Tamil Nadu had been a political,literary, cultural centre for more than 2000 years. But UGC’s north centric Indian history denies what were due to other regions.
Eclipsing Regions
Since Independence attempts are being made to broad base Indian history, to redeem the new nation’s history from its north-centric and Sanskrit-centric approaches. Regional histories were explored and accommodated in the national history. Now Sanskrit and non Vedic traditions could find adequate space in national history. The distinct characteristics of Indus Valley civilization, Tamil traditions, Dravidian art and architecture, the sramanic traditions, the legacies of great South Indian empires such as the Satavahanas, Chalukyas, Pallavas, Rashtrakutas, the Cholas, the Hoysalas, and the Vijaynagar could secure considerable space in Indian historiography. Now every State has constructed its own past, its own regional history. As every state, especially of the South, is concious of its own distinct past, and its own contributions to a common (national) legacy, it makes regional history (like History of Tamil Nadu. History of Kerala, History of Karnataka) compulsory core papers along with papers on Indian History. The UGC’s LOCF eliminates space for regional histories. The inclusion of a few regional (?) dynasties as minor subdivisions in Indian History papers cannot be a viable alternative. The subordination of the South to North is one issue; but the major issue is the now-recognition of the South in general, and Tamils in particular, is the major issue. Mutual contributions forged the currents of Indian history. Building a thesis of “a triumph of one stream over others” is a colonial mind set. How the different streams flourished together, by alterations, adjustments and by compromises, constitutes the History of India. The present UGC’s LOCF syllabus attempts to interpret India’s history and a triumph of one stream over the other.
Such an approach will be construed as distortion history and that will be detrimental to the democratic federal and secular values of the modern Indian nation. A federal nation’s history cannot be structured by neglecting the diverse regional streams that contributed a lot in every sphere of human activity. Regions cannot be denied their due share in history.
The Myth of Bharatha:
The very title “Idea of Bharath” for the first compulsory core papers is controversial Avoidance of ‘India’ and insisting on ‘Bharath’ as a national identity defies all national historic graphical considerations. The Idea of ‘India’ is based on historical references. ‘India’ as referred to in the Persian, Greek and other European sources indicates a definite territory, and Indians the inhabitants of that territory. It is a territorial, political and secular identity. Where as ‘Bharath’ is derived from controversial mythologies. There were too many mythological figures with the name Bharath or Bharatha. One mythological Bharatha found in Jain tradition, a Scion of Rishabadeva who ruled the Himalayam (Kailasa) region, another Bharatha was the younger brother of mythological Rama, who ruled the small kingdom of Ayodhya, on behalf of Rama for 14 years. In the Rig vedic hymns, there is a mention to one SUDAS, the chief tain of Bharata clan. The Bharathas were not rulers of a larger territory (but confined to a narrow tract of land in the present day Punjab). They were in fact one of the sub clans of the Tritsyus. Tritsyus in Puna were one of the five major clans (Pancha Jana) of the Sindhu. There were rishis too with the nama Bharata (Bharata Natya Sastra). Of course there were a few references to Bharata varsha, and Bharata Kanda in Indian writings. But that did not mean a homogeneous political unit, it meant only a general and common territory. But relating Bharata to Mahabharata’s fictions sub story character Bharata (son of Sakuntala and Dushyanta) seems to be a vaishnavite concoction. Anyway the idea of ‘India’ is modern, secular, federal and non monarchical, whereas the idea of ‘Bharath’ is mythological, sectarian, unitary, and monarchical. If the LOCF intends to emphasise the constitutional term, India that is Bharath, the title of the paper can only be ‘The idea of India that is Bharath’ ; in that case the syllabus will have to explain both the terms (India and Bharath). The exclusive term ‘Bharath’ makes it sectarian and anti-secular and unconstitutional.
Thus the UGC’s LOCF for BA History is a sinister move to impose a unhistorical unitary history for India on all States and it is an assault on the pluralistic formation of the State and on the heterogeneous cultural traditions of India. Since the socalled autonomous colleges are vulnerable to the UGC’s intimidatory interventions, they are likely to adopt the LOCF, and in the State universities too, the vulnerable vice-chancellors may use their power and position for the adoption of the LOCF syllabus. If this LOCF goes unchallenged by the stakeholders, that syllabus may become the source material for the UPSC examinations. A false history would become the Nation’s history. The Tamil Nadu Government should intervene before it is too late. It should ensure that its higher education institutions are bound by State’s interests and State’s priorities; If necessary suitable amendments to the university Acts can be brought to ensure that the State institutions are accountable and responsible to State Government, of course without compromising on its genuine academic autonomy.
In addition the Tamil Nadu Government ought to institute a ‘Tamil Nadu Council for Historical Research’ in order to promote researches in Tamil History and culture.
Concluded
