Scroll and its lies

So it happens again. Scroll, is a so called “liberal” online publication which usually dishes out stories on social issues. These stories sometimes have a liberal sprinkling of lies on them. You can read more on the lies here. So in its latest attempt, Scroll has “revived” one of its old articles written by Girish Shahane. Now Girish sits in the same row as Shoaib Daniyal (also writes for Scroll), another habitual liar. Both Girish and Shoaib have an unexplained hatred for Indian history. That is probably the reason they never bother to really dig deeper to understand what the recent developments in archaeology suggest about India’s history. Maybe they both had to suffer a boring history teacher in school and hence are so disgusted with the subject that they decided to singlehandedly distort it.

In the latest “revived” article, Girish tries hard to “expose” the historical myths of India. A very challenging task, especially if one has to distort and hide facts. Let us examine the exposes one at a time. By the way, the article starts with invocation of BJP for some strange reason. But let it be.

Expose 1. The myth of rani Padmini

Here Girish makes the effort to establish the fact that Padmini is a fictitious character, who appears in the epic written by Jayasi, almost two centuries later. The records suggest that Padmini was also mentioned as Padmavati, thus introducing the element of myth to the story. Padmini may well have been a name given to the queen by Jayasi and later poets. But does that take away the fact that women of Chittor committed Jauhar once the city fell to Khilji? Jauhar has been recorded many times in Medieval India. Mostly in the then Rajputana but also in other parts of India. The South East Asia equivalent of Jauhar (Puputan) was recorded as late as the early twentieth century. The king with his entire family and the city dwellers would commit mass suicide by stabbing themselves with a Kris (dagger), when faced with imminent defeat. So yes the name Padmini may be fictitious but the other details stand true. The then prevailing war rules of the Muslim armies would allow the sack and plunder of the city for three days after its fall. The soldiers were allowed to take booty and slaves, a fifth of which would belong to the sultan. The women preferred to die instead of being humiliated in the slave markets.

Girish here goes one step further and appoints Khilji as “one of the finest generals in India’s military history”. What is not clear here is whether Girish considers burning of libraries and Buddhist places of worship as a qualification to be the “finest general”.

Expose 2. The myth of Prithviraj Chauhan

Here Girish contests the poem written by Chand Bardai, where Prithviraj is depicted as blind man, captured by Mohammed Ghori. Prithviraj, with the help of a companion kills Ghori by an arrow. Here again, Girish relies on a poem, which by no account should be considered history. But probably Girish learnt Greek history from Iliad and Odyssey and actually believes that there was indeed a Cyclops settlement in ancient Greece.

In both expose 1 & 2 Girish relies on poetry. He forgets that what people believe to be the words of god, were written down by humans. The new testament, the koran, the hadith were all written down, as we know them, centuries after Jesus and Mohammed died. These in no way these should be considered history and then rebutted. It is a fool’s job, really.

Expose 3. The myth of a non-violent India

Here Girish rebuts the “myth” of a non-violent India and quotes Vivekanand’s speech in Colombo. “…our religion is truer than any other religion, because it never conquered, because it never shed blood.” He then goes on to highlight the Chola naval expeditions to Sri Lanka and South East Asia. Hence proving that India was not a non-violent country. As it happens, a quote is taken out form a speech and is “adjusted” to suit the writer’s narrative. You can read the full text of the 1897 speech Vivekanand delivered here. Here the context in which the remark of India being a non-conquering nation was made was that of propagating ideas and probably religious beliefs through war. And in this context he says that India has never propagated her ideas through war. He was probably referring to the Crusades or the Islamic conquest of the Middle East and North Africa. Later in the speech Vivekanand mentions the Greeks and Romans who waged great wars but were ultimately erased and sent to the pages of history while India as a civilisation still stands.

Expose 4. The myth of Sanskrit

Girish firmly believes that Sanskrit is not the “mother of all languages”. He mentions the research which puts Proto Indo European (PIE) as the source of Indo European languages. According to the research the PIE originated in the Anatolian region and by that logic Sanskrit cannot be the mother of all languages, since Sanskrit itself is derived from an ancient language.

Girish in his claim does not tell us which research he is actually talking about. A quick Google search revealed that a research with the same conclusion was published in the Science in 2012. The new item in Times of India suggests that the research took into consideration 6,000 cognates, fed them into a computer programme and came up with the conclusion. Now it is interesting that the study claims to have come up some “convincing” evidence based on mere 6,000 cognates. But that is not all. Academicians and archaeologists have disputed the claims of the research. You can read the views here.

So is Sanskrit the mother of all languages? Yes and no. It may not be the mother of Arabic or Chinese but it surely is the mother of almost all Indian languages, except for maybe Tamil. The influence of Sanskrit is evident is the grammar and alphabets of the Indian languages and that of Tibet, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Myanmar, Thailand, Cambodia and Laos. All these languages use the principles of Pannini of arranging the alphabet and have the same sound as those of Sanskrit. So yes, Sanskrit is the mother of all languages if you look South East.

Expose 5. The myth of a 5,000 year old civilisation

I am Bhirrana, I am 8,000 years old
Image: ASI

This is probably the lamest of the five rebuttals that Girish has concocted. He says, “In truth, almost nothing in India is 5,000 years old. The ruins of the Harappan civilisation come closest, but the artefacts that have survived, aside from a few pot shards, don’t date earlier than 2500 BC”. If the claim made by Girish is to be believed the Archaeological Survey of India is definitely an organisation that is spinning lies. Because the ASI has submitted a report suggesting the archaeological remains excavated at Bhirrana village date back to between 7570 – 6200 BCE. The entire history of the Indus-Saraswati civilisation has been pushed back by almost 3,700 years. So yes, the Indian civilisation is not 5,000 years old but more like 8,000 years old.

It is sad that for the sake of ideological leanings people not only distort data but also manufacture lies. 

Why is the right winning?

The past couple of years have been difficult for the Left liberals, in many countries. The Right has been gaining ground at the expense of a declining Left. The latest shock comes of course from the world’s oldest democracy, the US. The urban Americans were so shocked by a Trump win, that they took out protest rallies in major cities. Incidents of arson and vandalism were reported from many cities.

A New York Times report from May 2016 catalogued the rise of Right Wing and Far Right parties gaining traction in Europe. In countries like Germany where Right Wing parties seldom found any following, in the post war era, saw the rise of Alternative für Deutschland (AfD), a Right Wing populist party. Since 2014, AfD has won seats in ten out of the sixteen states in Germany. In France, Marine Le Pen’s Front National made inroads by winning seats in municipal and regional elections. The Telegraph, after the win of Donald Trump, reported that there is a chance that Marine Le Pen can actually win the French Presidency in 2017. Hungary has of course seen a steady support to its Right Wing coalition which came to power in 2010 and retained its majority in 2014.

The resurgence of Right Wing in Europe is not limited to large prosperous countries like Germany, France and the UK (which opted out of EU earlier this year in a popular referendum). Smaller countries like Netherland have also witnessed rise of Far Right parties like Geert Wilders’ Party for Freedom, better known by its Dutch acronym PVV. The party has representations in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. In Austria, which saw the horrors of Second World War, Freedom Party won 35% votes in the first round of 2016 Presidential elections. It is indeed surprising that the region, which suffered the most under the Fascist regimes of Hitler and Mussolini would vote and elect Right Wing or Far Right parties. The question is why is this happening? The answer may lie in plain sight.

For too long after the Second World War, European and American politics tilted towards Left liberal politics, irrespective of the affiliations of the party in power. It was the era of political correctness and living in guilt of the War. It was also the time when decolonisation reached its peak with African and Asian colonies gaining self-rule. The Russian Revolution had established its stronghold on Russia and Central Asia and was now exporting Socialism to other parts of the world. The concept of equality and an egalitarian society were gaining currency. Just when the countries were coming out of the miseries of the War the Socialist movement swept the world. The Unions brought the UK to its knees, Germany reeled under the terror of Red Army Faction. Eastern Europe was for all practical purpose a puppet of Russia.

Before one starts fearing the change, it is necessary that one realizes that the Right Wing and Far Right of twenty first century is not gunning for mass murder. The invocation of Fascism by a large section of media to draw parallels with the current resurgence of Right wing movements is pure exaggeration at the least and fearmongering at worst. The section of media, which involves in scaremongering does so based on emotions and not on facts. It should be noted that in post war Europe and a large part of Asia the constitution of many countries went through changes and created robust institutions. The only exceptions are Monarchies and despotic Communist regimes. Power is no longer concentrated in one person and the complex web of multilateral institutions, trade blocs and intergovernmental bodies like the UN have created dependencies and control mechanisms.

Yes, I will ban burka by leaning a little on the Right.
Image credit - NorthBridge Times

So why is the Right winning? There are many reasons this can be attributed to. The prime reason being falling standards of living as a result of economic decline. Low fertility rates and emergence of Asia as the new hub of economic growth pushed many European countries and the US into an era of extremely slow growth. Large scale immigration from war torn countries of the Middle East and North Africa has caused social tensions and fear of additional economic hardship for the locals. To top it all the so called “reputed” and “respected” media is treading the “liberal” voice where left leaning policies are the solution to everything and fear of immigrants is simply put, bigotry. What the liberals do not realise is that there is considerable discrepancy between the media and voters’ opinion.

For too long people have heard the manufactured opinion of the media and have learnt to tell truth from propaganda. They see their own standards of living falling and fear for their children’s future. The dislike for the liberal policies is more because the same liberals have failed them in the past. The welfare state created by the past governments has made people dependent on the state and created a bloated bureaucracy. With falling growth prospects and fewer people entering the workforce, the welfare state started shrinking. More people were left to fend for themselves and the safety cushion provided by the state started crumbling.

With technology, access to information and news is easier than it was in the last decade. Social media has pushed news and opinion into our workplace, cafes, restaurants and bedrooms. This has led to a sharp polarization in public opinion. People are divided on ideological lines. While the elite toes the liberal line of an egalitarian society where immigrants are welcomed with open arms. The commoners want freedom from their miseries and hence look up to the Right, which promises them jobs, security, social order and more recently a reduction in immigration. The truth is that the elite will always have a louder voice but common people will have a higher vote share. And this is perhaps why the Right is winning.