Dr.

S L Bhyrappa’s path-breaking novel ಆವರಣ was released in

2007. About a year before the novel was published, Bhyrappa
wrote an article titled ‘Nationalism can Never be Strengthened by
Projecting Historical Lies.’ This led to a heated discussion.
Bhyrappa wrote a follow-up article in response to some of his
‘secularist’ critics like Girish Karnad, who had unjustly tried to
whitewash the atrocities committed by Islamic fanatics like
Tughlaq and Tipu. Bhyrappa’s second article was titled ‘What
would be the Fate of Truth if a Historian takes Liberties like a
Fiction Author?’ This is an abridged translation of the original; it
first appeared in Folks Magazine on 20 May 2012.

I am grateful to Sri Girish Karnad, Sumatheendra Nadig, Dr.

Chidananda Murthy, Dr. Suryanath Kamath, Dr. S. Shettar,
Shatavadhani Dr. R. Ganesh and others who responded earnestly
to my article under the title ‘Nationalism can Never be
Strengthened by Projecting Historical Lies.’ To continue the
discussions about Mohammed Bin Tughlaq and Tipu Sultan would
be just an exercise in extracting more details. What we really need
to do is to analyze the present political attitudes in teaching
history. In order to do this, let me first present what I learnt of the
nature of the prevailing political control through my own
experience.

During the year 1969-70 the Central Government under Mrs.

Indira Gandhi established a committee under the Chairmanship of
G. Parthasarathy, a diplomat close to Nehru-Gandhi family. Its
task was to integrate the nation through education. At that time I
was a reader in Educational Philosophy at NCERT and was
selected as one of the five members of the committee. In our first
meeting Mr. Parthasarathy, as Chairman of the committee
explained the purpose of our committee in typically diplomatic
language: “It is our duty not to sow the seeds of thorns in the
minds of the growing children which will grow up as barriers to
national integration. Such thorns are found mostly in the history
courses. Occasionally we can find them in language and social
science courses also. We have to weed them out. We have to
include only such thoughts that go towards inculcating the concept
of national integration firmly in the minds of our children. This
committee carries this great responsibility.”

The other four members were nodding respectfully. But I said,

“Sir, I am unable to understand your words. Will you please
explain with a few illustrations?” The Chairman responded:
“Ghazni Mohammed looted the Somnath Temple, Aurangzeb built
mosques by demolishing the temples in Kashi and Mathura, he
collected jizya — is it possible to build a strong India under the
present circumstances by conveying such useless facts? What
purpose do they serve, other than generating hatred?”

“But are they not historical truths?” I persisted.

“Plenty of truths are there. Using these truths judiciously is the

wise way to teach history,” he retorted. The remaining four
members simply nodded their heads saying, “Yes, yes.” But I was
not prepared to let him off.

“You yourself gave examples of Kashi and Mathura. Even today,

lakhs of pilgrims from all corners of the country visit these places
every year. They can see for themselves the huge mosques built
using the walls, pillars and columns that once belonged to
demolished temples. They can also see a recently built cow shed
like shack in a corner, behind the mosque, that serves as their
temple. All these pilgrims are distressed to witness such awful
structures. They describe the plight of their temples to their
relatives after they return home. Can this create national
integration? You can hide such history in the school texts. But can
we hide such facts when these children go on excursions and see
the truth for themselves? Researchers have listed more than thirty
thousand such ruined temples in India. Can we hide them all?”

Mr. Parthasarthy interrupted me and asked: “You are a professor

of philosophy. Can you please tell us what is the purpose of
history?”

“Nobody can define the purpose of history. We do not know how

the things will shape up because of the development of science
and technology in the future. Some western thinkers might call it
the philosophy of history. But such thoughts are futile. Our
discussion here should be — what is the purpose of teaching
history? History is seeking out the truths about our past events,
learning about ancient human lives by studying the inscriptions,
records, literary works, relics, artifacts, etc. We should learn also
not to commit the same blunders that our predecessors committed.
We have to imbibe the noble qualities that they adopted; historical
truths help us to learn all these things.”

“What if this search for truth hurts the feelings of the minority?
Can we divide society? Can we sow the seeds of poison?” He tried
to stop me with these questions.

“Sir, the categorization on the lines of majority and minority

would itself be dividing the society, or at least a step towards
dividing the society. This idea of ‘seeds of poison’ is prejudiced.
Why should the minority think of Gazni Mohammed and
Aurangzeb as their own people and heroes? Mughal kingdom was
destroyed by the religious bigotry of Aurangzeb. It was at its
height in Akbar’s time because his policy of tolerance led to
religious and social harmony. Can’t we teach such lessons to
children without offending the historical truths? Before teaching
the lessons to be learnt from the history, should we not explain the
historical truths? This idea of hiding true history is driven politics.
This trend will not last long. Whether they are minority or
majority, if the education does not impart the character to face the
truth with emotional maturity, such education is meaningless and
also dangerous.” I replied.

Parthasarathy agreed. He said he appreciated my scholarship and

the ability to think clearly. During the lunch break he called me
aside, indicated his closeness to me by placing his hand on my
shoulders. He then said with a winning smile: “What you say is
correct academically. You go and write an article about what you
said. But when the government formulates a policy covering the
whole nation, it has to consider the interests of all the people.
Intellectually pure principles do not serve any purpose.”

Next day when we met, I stuck to my stand. I argued that history

that is not based on truth is futile and dangerous. I did not budge
even when Parthasarathy showed his irritation on his face. The
morning session closed without arriving at any conclusion.
Parthasarathy did not speak to me again. We met again after a
fortnight. The committee had been re-structured, without me. In
my place was a lecturer in history by name Arjun Dev known for
his leftist leanings. The revised text books of science and social
studies published by NCERT and the new lessons that were
introduced in these texts were written under his guidance. These
are the books which were prescribed as texts in the Congress and
Communist ruled states or they guided the text-book writers in
these States.

Later, I commented on this in a speech I gave at Alwas Nudisiri, in

October 2005:

In the NCERT books for XI standard, the Ancient India part is

written by the Marxist historian R.S. Sharma and the Medieval
India part is by Satish Chandra, also a Marxist. When examined,
one can observe that how members belonging to this group had a
scheme to brainwash the minds of growing children. According to
them Ashoka preached to respect even [stress is mine] Brahmins
by advocating the quality of tolerance. He had banned the ritual of
sacrificing the animals and birds. When the performance of yajnas
was stopped due to this ban, Brahmins lost their share
of dakshina (cash gifts) and their livelihood was affected. The
Maurya empire disintegrated after Ashoka and many parts of this
kingdom came under the rule of Brahmins.

How childish can one be — to claim that a highly influential

religion that had spread all over India and even beyond declined
because dissatisfied Brahmins were deprived of
their dakshina (cash gifts)? Their other claim is that Muslims
demolished temples to loot the riches and wealth accumulated in
these temples. This explanation is supposed to rationalize their
actions. In some other context they may even say the looting may
be according to the laws of Sharia, which again paints the events
as legally sanctioned.

Actually, Buddhism did not disappear from India after Ashoka.

The truth was told by Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, a Buddhist himself. In
the section, The Decline and Fall of Buddhism (Writings and
Speeches, Volume III, Government of Maharashtra, 1987, pp. 229-
38) he noted that after Muslim invaders destroyed the universities
of Nalanda, Vikramasheela, Jagaddala, Odanthapura, etc.,
followed by brutal killings of the Buddhist monks, the survivors
were forced to escape to Nepal, Tibet, and other neighbouring
countries to save their lives. As he wrote, “The roots of Buddhism
were axed. Islam killed Buddhism by killing priestly class of
Buddhism. This is the worst catastrophe suffered by Buddhism in
India.”

Like the Devil quoting the scriptures, Marxists quote Ambedkar

whenever it is convenient for them to denigrate Hinduism, but
ignore his inconvenient words like, “The decline of Buddhism in
India is due to the terrifying actions of Muslims.” R.S. Sharma the
author of a textbook on Ancient India (New Delhi: NCERT, 1992.
p. 112) writes, “Buddha viharas attracted Turkish invaders
because of their wealth. They were the special greedy targets for
the invaders. Turks killed many Buddhist monks. Despite these
killings, many monks escaped to Nepal and Tibet.”

Who were these Turks? Hindus? Here the clever Marxist Sharma
has hidden the fact that these ‘Turks’ were Muslims who
destroyed these religious places as dictated by Sharia (Islamic
Law). He tries to hide this fact by calling Muslims of Turkey with
only the tribal name Turkish. At the same time they (he and
others) write that Buddhism declined during Ashoka’s reign
because of Brahmins who were deprived of
their dakshina(monetary gifts). One should appreciate their
sophistry — hiding the truth about Turks being Muslims, but
creating the falsehood that Brahmins deprived of dakshinawere
responsible for the decline of Buddhism after Ashoka. Latin
rhetoricians called such a tactic suppressio veri, suggestio falsi.

Translated by Sandeep Balakrishna from the original Kannada.

About Latest Posts

Dr. S L
Bhyrappa
Arguably the
foremost novelist of
modern India, S L
Bhyrappa began his
literary journey in the
1950s with a few of
his works being
published for private
circulation. In 1961,
his first major work
Dharmashree was
published and ever
since, he has written
several masterpieces
such as Aavarana,
Daatu, Grhabhanga,
Mandra, Nele, Parva,
and Vamshavrksha.