Writing History, Scripting Politics and the Nation State: A Critique of the Nehruvian Consensus

A look at the world of politics, statecraft, diplomacy and books

Ram Manohar Lohia and Sita Ram Goel were both eminent public figures in the early decades of the Republic, when the Nehruvian consensus on India was forged and was institutionalised in the School and University curriculum. Essentially, this consensus represented a compromise with the Muslim population for votes and this arrangement was brought under the ideology of Secularism. Second, the pre Islamic past of India was to be viewed as an "area of Darkness" with the Indian civilization playing at best a marginal role in world history. Therefore all the fault lines of an ancient civilization were ten as its defining features: caste, social division and hierarchy. The entire historical experience of India was brought under these categories.  The triumph of post-colonialism in the Academia has given added strength and vigour to these notions. 

Sita Ram Goel started life as a "Marxist" and soon found himself exiled from the promised land. He is known widely for his two volume study of Hindu Temples during the period of Islamic rule. The Left-Liberal Historians consider even asking this question of India's past a heretical act that invites the wrath of the elect elite "professional historians". In the pamphlet, a riposte to the notorious Communalism and the Writing of Indian History by the "Trimurthi"of contemporary Indian Historiography, Romila Thapar, Harbans Muhkia, and Bipan Chandra. 

The defining event of Modern India was the Partition and the Congress acquiesced in the Partition even though Gandhi had declared that he would die to preserve the integrity of India. (Partition over my dead body, thundered Gandhi). The tension between the Muslim elites and the Congress Party could not be papered over and with the strident call for Partition given in the Lahore session of the Muslim League in 1940, the Congress could do little to stem the tide of events. The leadership lost the opportunity to place its point of view when the Congress boycotted the Simon Commission and the resignations from the Ministries following India's entry in World War II left the field to the Muslim League. Ram Manohar Lohia has written an insightful essay on those he believed were responsible for Partition. Jawaharlal Nehru , Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad and Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi were the "Guilty Men".  Nehru was too anxious to come to power and longed for the comforts of Office, Mohandas Gandhi had reached the nadir of his political life and was not in a position to influence the tide of events. And Abdul Kalam Azad hardly comanded a following among the Muslim populace. Lohia has argued that the mistakes both at the strategic and tactical level made by the leadership of the Congress was responsible for the tragedy of Partition.

After Independence a clutch of Historians dominated the discourse on the past of India. The attempt to view India and its past in a positive manner was brushed aside as "communal" a term that has not been defined or properly explained. Identity Politics in the name of religion can be taken as the key feature of a "communal" mode of writing history. And in this the medieval period which is dominated by the Alighar School is quite prone to the projection of Islamic identity on Historiography.

The little pamphlet deals with the Ancient Period only and it exposes the errors and distortions in the writings of Romila Thapar.