Our fight for justice fails because we don’t know true history.

Historians are supposed to be seekers of truth. They are expected to tell the truth and nothing but the truth. But our experience with the extant historical writing in India is galling and disgusting. Most of them suffer from serious distortion of facts and travesty of truth. Errors of commission and omission have been made wilfully or otherwise. Wanton suppression of facts, unnecessary reading between the liens and observing conspiracy of silence in the case of the history of Bahujans are the cases of historical distortion. Thus we experience a historical blackout at the hands of the so-called learned scholars in the field of historical writings in India.

NEED FOR NEW HISTORY – In fact, the history of this land is the history of the aborigines of India. They are the people who marched along with history nurturing the same. As the original rulers of this country, we had a history to be proud of. Unfortunately, we are not fully aware of our past history due to the age-long suppression and oppression imposed on us by the Aryan Manuwadi oppressors. They destroyed our history and fabricated a new history of their own to prolong their oppressive rule through a process of mind manipulation and brainwashing. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar had rightly observed: “If you want to destroy a society, destroy its history and the society will get destroyed automatically” . This is what exactly happened to us. Hence we have to reconstruct our history posing a severe challenge to the manuvadi robbers who looted the treasury of our golden history. We have to regain our history, the history of the people, by the people and for the people for the welfare of
all.

It should also be noted that a society which has no history cannot rule. This is because it is the history which gives inspiration. Inspiration leads to awakening and awakening paves the way for thinking. Thinking gives strength and strength produce power. And ultimately it is the power that makes us the rulers of our country. Hence the need for new history for new India. True history tells us that the Aryans came as conquerors, brutally destroyed our Indus Valley Civilization and made us the Dasus or slaves. The vedic literature clearly proves this but the manuvadis have eclipsed this history and made us believe that our Indus culture had been destroyed by natural calamities. Then up to the origin of Buddhism, these oppressors had established a reign of terror with the Brahminical Social Order (BSO) maintained by yagas and yajnas. All human rights were violated by introducing rigid caste rules like Manusmriti ad other inhuman law codes. Even during this period of severe suppression, there were powerful resistance movements either in the political or ideological form. The ideological challenge posed by Kapila, Goshala, Katyayana, Kanada and many others are the striking examples. Moreover, the 16 janapadas in North India had posed a political challenge to the Brahminical Social Order. Buddhism under Asoka liberated the Bahujans from the yoke of Aryanisation and inaugurated a new era of dharmavijaya instead of the Digvijaya of Brahminism.

BUDDHISM DESTROYED BY B.S.O. ( Brahmanical Social Order)

Then up to the time of Pushyamitra the Bahujans could sustain the new history inaugurated by Budha and maintained by Asoka. The treacherous deeds of the Manuvadi Pushyamitra paved the way for the revival of the BSO. Buddhism was brutally destroyed by the Hindutva forces with the help of their stooges. The Buddhists were tortured, murdered and they were deprived of their property and means of livelihood and were forced to lead a life of destitution and utter slavery. Buddhist monks were either killed or they ran away to Nepal, Tibet, Bhutan, Burma and Ceylon. In order to sustain this BSO fabricated new history for their new India (the age of the Guptas) through the puranas, epics, srutis and smritis. Today the BSO is doing the same destructive work against Muslims and Christians. Both Islam and Christianity are liberating religions for Bahujans. We Bahujans had adopted different paths for our emancipation from the clutches of Brahminical masters. Our paths may be different but we belong to the same Dravidian stock having ethnic blood relation. This vital aspect of our history is to be highlighted and propagated against the Brahminical policy of divide and rule. This historical unity is essential for the empowerment of India.

HUMBUG OF “UNITY IN DIVERSITY”

The much publicised “unity in diversity” theory of the BSO has eclipsed our real ethnic and cultural unity. They say that in spite of the linguistic, social and cultural diversity there is an undercurrent of unity. This is nothing but an artificial unity imposed on the Bahujans by the BSO through the institution of the caste system. Though the Brahmins form a micro-minority we see their presence in all the states from Kashmir to Kanyakumari. It was the forefathers of these Brahmins who enslaved us under casteism suppressing the diverse nationalities of the Bahujans.From Kashmir to Kanyakumari they could introduce a uniform system of slavery and maintained the same for centuries together. It was this slavery which was acting as the “unity in diversity”.

ISLAM CHALLENGES BRAHMINS

Christianity, Islam and other revolutionary movements of the Bahujans bombarded this slavery or the so-called unity decades back. But we still feel pride in the Brahminical slogan “unity in diversity”. The true unity in our diversity would come out only with the new history. After the age of the Guptas, which witnessed the revival of Brahminism and their so-called Golden Age, a new era with a new history was inaugurated by the Delhi Sultans which was further maintained by the Mughal rulers. During this time Islam posed a great challenge to the BSO. Jihadi Islam did not compromise with the manuvadis. The process which is fondly called assimilation process by the manuvadis failed for the first time in the history of India before Islam. As a religion of hatred and exploitation, Hinduism survived throughout the ages by hijacking and Aryanising its powerful opponents. This is what is called assimilative potentiality of the BSO. Actually, it was neither assimilated nor potentiality but a simple method of killing the opponents of Hindus. It assimilated the Budha and made him the ninth avatar. Also take note that in the Valmiki Ramayana, Rama calls Budha a thief. Brahminism tried to hijack Mohammed and Islam through Allo-upanishad and Bhavishya Purana.

JINNAH OPPOSED PARTITION

The Sudra Shivaji has been Hinduised. Efforts are going on to Hinduise Dr. Ambedkar, Narayana Guru, Ayyankali and other revolutionaries. It was this failure of the BSO before Islam that constrained them to annihilate Islam through false propaganda and distortion of history. The Aligarh movement, Jinnah, the Muslim League, Babri Masjid — all these were depicted as symbols of communalism and anti-national elements. It was V.D. Savarkar who first propounded the two-nation theory in 1923 in his book Hindutva. But Jinnah is blamed for the partition of India by the manuvadi historians. Even in 1940 Jinnah said “the two nations in India (Hindus and Muslims) who both must share the governance of their common motherland”. The use of the words “share” and “common motherland” shows that Jinnah did not think of division of the country at that time. All these aspects are to be brought to light in our new history for new India.

MARXIST MISCHIEF

The so-called Marxist historians have played much havoc in the historical interpretation. For them the economic situation is the only factor that moulds human life and civilization. But Marx and Engels do not approve of the overemphasis given to economic factors. To quote Engels: “According to the materialist conception of history, the ultimately determining element in history is the production and reproduction of real life. More than this neither Marx nor I have ever asserted. Hence if somebody twists this into saying that the economic element is the only determining one, he transforms that proportion into a meaningless, abstract, senseless phrase”. But our so-called Marxist writers have produced amazing rubbish by the misinterpretation of historical facts. Engels has prohibited its application to man’s spiritual pursuits, caste, religion, philosophy etc. But our contemporary manuvadi Marxist are not prepared to listen to these sane words.

CUNNING BRAHMIN E.M.S.

Only you need read the historical works of E.M.S. Namboothripad to realize the tremendous harm he has done to history. His books —Keralam-Malayalikal ude Mathrubhumi, Kerala — Yesterday, Today & Tomorrow, National Question in Kerala etc. help us to understand how materialist conception is used to misinterpret Indian history and Kerala society. He went to the extent of saying that caste system is a significant contribution made by the Aryan Brahmins and it was the caste system which paved the way for the development of the modern Kerala culture. He also says that the Keralites should be proud of this Brahminical caste system. Vivekananda had remarked that Kerala was a lunatic asylum because of the rigid caste system prevailed under the patronage of the Brahmins and Nairs. No wonder if the lunatic asylum of Vivekananda becomes a Dharmarajya in the marxian history of the cunning Brahmin E.M.S. Where facts are absent he creates them with the help of assumed models where facts are present he ignores them, if they do not fit in the models.

MARXISM BRAHMANISED

According to Marx the rule of the proletariat can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions (in India it is the BSO) through a proletarian movement. The Brahmins were neither the proletariat nor formed the lowest stratum of Indian society. The doctrine of Marx encouraged the proletariat movement to protect the interest of that class and forcible overthrow of the ruling class into the air. Communism declares: “Let the ruling class tremble at the communistic revolution”, but the pseudo-marxists in India put it in the reverse order and declared: “Let the working class tremble at the Brahminic counter revolution”. This is what we see today in West Bengal, Kerala and other parts of India. The Manuvadis became marxist only to hijack marxism and hinduise the doctrine through sanskritisation. They became marxists to realize two goals. (1) They threatened the British authority with a prospect of proletarian revolution to bargain for early transfer of power. (2) They endeavored to divert and damage the paridly growing revolutionary movement of the suppressed classes of India under the leadership of Dr. Ambedkar, E.V.R, Sree Narayana Guru and many others. The leaders hijacked and completely hinduised marxism before the producer class came to know about it. We should note that marxism can be used as an effective tool to analyse the BSO as Marx himself has exposed the nature of Hinduism as an engine of tyranny.

It can also be noted that the manuvadi marxists have failed to understand Karl Marx statement that India had no history. For Marx there can be no history without class struggle and that is why India without class struggle is without history too. But Dr. Ambedkar has explained this view of Marx saying that Indian history has been a struggle between Buddhism and Brahminism. This confirms the marxian view that in pre-capital social systems class struggle may take either political or ideological form. This class struggle in the Indian context was perhaps muted and unrecorded during the very long influence of Brahminical supremacy. This significant aspect should be elucidated in our new history for new India.

INDEPENDENCE MAKES BRAHMIN AS RULER

Everywhere in the world, the enslaved people could win freedom from the foreign yoke in a fine morning. But India won freedom at midnight when the masses were asleep. Nevertheless, the ruling class was awake and alert and won the freedom from the British. Actually, it was not a process of winning freedom but the transfer of power from the British to the Indian ruling class. In effect, it was not a war of independence but a war of dependents (the ruling class of India).

The true history tells us that the Bahujans, the original inhabitants of India, had been the real rulers of this country. The BSO enslaved them usurped power and became their masters. It was under this circumstance that India was brought under Western imperialism. Here arise a relevant question, who lost independence under Western imperialism? The traditional ruling class or their slaves, the Bahujans? The slave class had already lost their freedom before the coming of the foreign masters, under the indigenous manuvadi rulers. Hence it was these manuvadi masters who lost freedom under the British rule. We had nothing to lose but the shackles presented by the oppressors. These oppressors became good servants of their British masters.

HISTORY DISTORTED

Our great brother VTR has taught us that the Brahmins are good servants but bad masters. To the British, they were good servants and to the Bahujans they are bad masters. It was to these “servants of India” that the power was transferred at midnight on Aug.15, 1947. In the pretext of democracy, they maintained aristocracy and oligarchy through mind manipulation of the illiterate masses of India. In the history fabricated by the manuvadis, the movements and events connected with the so-called upper castes are depicted as national history. And the movements and events initiated by the Bahujans are depicted as caste movements of narrow outlook. To our children leaders like Dayananda Saraswati, Tilak, Rajaram Mohan Roy, Patel, Gandhi and Nehru are national leaders. But revolutionary leaders like Phule, Dr. Ambedkar, Sir Sayed Ahmad Khan, Sree Narayana Guru, Ayyankali and EVR are regional leaders. The social revolution of great magnitude that occurred in Kerala was never seen as a part of national history. A social revolution was set in motion by Sree Narayana Guru and the great Malayalam poet, Kumaran Asan. This movement electrified not only the suppressed masses but also the upper strata of the society and brought about a total revolution in Kerala.

WHY BRITISH QUIT INDIA?

This great historical process had revolutionized the life of a larger number of people than the combined forces of Brahmo Samaj, Arya Samaj and other organizations could effect on people all over India. Similar instances can be derived from the history of other states also. It is needless to say that only a new history can do justice to these neglected chapters of great magnitude. Regarding freedom struggle or the so-called war of independence, it has been believed that the British decided to quit India since they were scared of the gandhian satyagraha movement. A critical study of the war of dependents would prove that it was not the satyagraha or the passive resistance initiated by M.K. Gandhi that forced the British to quit India. In fact, it was the Second World War which came to an end in 1945 that prepared the ground for the withdrawal of the British. In effect, the satyagraha movement delayed the achievement of freedom which could have been achieved much earlier by Subhash Chandra Bose and other revolutionary leaders of the freedom movement.

SUBHAS BOSE STABBED IN THE BACK

Subhash had realized that it was the military force of the British that enabled them to sustain their imperial policies in India. That is why he organized the Indian National Army and sought the help of Japan and other nations which were fighting against the British. But Gandhi and Nehru stabbed him in the back and he was forced to leave India broken hearted. Even today the Govt. of India is reluctant to hand over the confidential reports regarding the disappearance of Bose to the commission of enquiry. It should also be noted tat Gandhi cooperated with the British authorities during the first and second world wars and had won awards and titles from the Britishers. In South Africa, he joined the British army and obtained the military rank of Sergeant-Major. He took part in the Boer and Zulu wars against the Blacks by serving the British army. (V.T. Rajshekar, Why Godse Killed Gandhi?, DSA-1997).

GANDHIAN HUMBUG

This Gandhian humbug should be revealed to prove that Gandhi was not a mahatma in the strict sense of the term. Gandhi opposed all the movements for social equality and justice. Gandhi’s “Poona Pact”, fast-unto death was nothing but a declaration of war against the Untouchables and not against untouchability. He helped hit the last nail on the coffin of the Untouchables’ future. That is why Dr. Ambedkar declared that Gandhi as the Enemy No.1 of the Dalits. Gandhi cannot be a mahatma because he brought no transformation in the lives of the deprived and the dehumanized. His salt satyagraha is included in all the history textbooks but the “Poona Pact” fast unto death is being cunningly excluded from the books given to our children. This should be exposed in our new history for new India.

CHANGE NATIONAL ANTHEM

In this context of nationalism and freedom struggle we have to rewrite the national anthem which is neither national nor anthem. The Janaganamana and the Bharat Bhagyavidhata clearly indicate that it referred to George-V. The Vande Mataram originated in an anti-Muslim background has also become anti-national. Our new India will summarily reject such fanatic and undemocratic Hindutva literature. The major part of the available history of India is the history of the upper castes, by the upper castes and for the upper castes. This should be changed into the history of the people, by the people and for the people. This task is to be undertaken by the educated and enlightened Bahujans of the country. We need social engineers to build a new India, the India of the indigenous people. Our struggle for social justice and equality fails mainly because of the fact that we are not fully aware of the history of social injustice done to us. To know the history of social injustice we should study the social history of our country which is being cunningly eclipsed by the pseudo historians of the BSO. As the social history remains hidden we fail to realize the much awaited unity of the Bahujans and the minorities. Let us move hand in hand to know our past and the present to shape a golden future through a cultural revolution. Hence the need for a new history for new India.

Author – Dr. M. S. Jayaprakash, Retd. Prof of History

Source: DV, Vol. 27, No. 2 , Jan. 16-31, 2008,