Dec 2002
Glaring Example of Deliberate Academic Fraud
Dr. Arun Shourie writes:
“By late June-early July 1998…Manoj Raghuvanshi, who runs the popular program Aap ki Adaalat, Aap ka Faisla on ZEE TV invited one of these eminences, K. M. Shrimali and me to discuss the matter.
With much righteousness Shrimali remarked that he was full of apprehensions because the sorts of persons who were now taking over the ICHR [Indian Council of Historical Research] were persons who had been distorting history, and suppressing facts. ‘For example?’ asked Manoj Raghuvanshi.
Beef was eaten in ancient India, said Shrimali, and these people suppress this fact.
And what is the evidence for that? Asked Raghuvanshi.
There are hundreds of writings to that effect, Shrimali said loftily.
In which Ved, in which text, which verse in which text? Asked Raghuvanshi.
I have not brought the books with me, said Shrimali, but the evidence is all over.
But name one text name one verse Raghuvanshi persisted.
Shrimali could not or did not name a single text, to say nothing of any verse or passage from it.
Someone from the audience interjected. Here are fours Veds, he said; handing over the books, read us a single passage from any of them, which supports what you are saying.
Raghuvanshi took the books from the person and took them over to Shrimali. Shrimali refused to look at them. Indeed, he recoiled.
Raghuvanshi then went to his table and began reading out passages after passages from the Veds in which there were strongest possible commands to not to eat beef.
At my request he asked Shrimali to read the verses himself.
Shrimali refused to do that. Instead, he became even more aggressive. So what if I cannot recall a text or recite a verse? He said.
But you are an expert on Ancient India, Raghuvanshi said.
What has my not being able to recall a verse had to do with my being an expert? Shrimali answered.
Even if you produce scores of verses against eating beef, that will not prove that beef was not eaten, Shrimali now maintained.
But when the Veds lay down that the cow is not to be killed, how do you keep saying that there was no prohibition against eating beef? Raghuvanshi asked.
I did not say the Veds, he said, I said ‘Vedic literature.’
All right. Name a single book from ‘Vedic literature’, which supports your position.
He did not do so.
The exchange went on – with Raghuvanshi and the audience asking for a single passage, for the name of a single book, and Shrimali refusing – failing is the correct word – to furnish either.
The program was broadcasted in the third week of July. Clearly Shrimali had come out in poor light. He therefore started writing critiques of the program in newspapers – or rather that he started writing the same critique in different newspapers. The following statements of Shrimali are taken from The Hindu, 10 September 1998.
‘Blatant editing of the program,’ he charged. ‘Mr. Raghuvanshi combined the role of both the prosecutor and the judge,’ he wrote. ‘I am less bothered about highly personalized and somewhat uncivilized attack on me in the context of the question on beef eating,’ he said.
Personalized attack? Uncivilized attack? Everyone was polite. All that the audience asked for, the only thing I asked for in the single interjection I made, the only thing that Raghuvanshi asked for a dozen of times, was that Shrimali name a book, a single passage in that single book which would substantiate what he was saying. How do those requests become a ‘highly personalized attack’? How does asking for substantiation become an ‘uncivilized attack’?”
Comments
On reading this episode several questions hit me at once. Why would someone, who had been acknowledged as an expert on ancient history of India, want to spread something that he knew to be untrue? Or did he not know that it was untrue? If he did not, then why would he want to retain his credits as the expert? For sake of argument let us say that an expert too can make a mistake, but then why would he not want to admit it? Was it at all a ‘mistake’ to start with considering the way he started the whole debate accusing others?
Why would he hurl accusations against those who were now taking over ICHR (Indian Council of Historical Research, Delhi)? Sometimes ago I had seen English media headlines that history was being re-written, was being saffronized. What was behind all that?
My memory rushed back to what I had read several months ago on the front page (bottom half) of a prominent English daily. The headlines stated that in Vedic times Hindus slaughtered cow and ate beef. It was now more than 3 years after Zee TV telecast that someone was reviving the lie. The news reporter quoted a politician saying so but s/he made no reference that this happened to be untruth. I had not yet read about the Zee TV telecast and many others would have missed that episode. All those who read the leading English daily would have believed what it reported. So we see that the lie lives on even after the eminent historian was exposed at ‘Aap ki Adaalat, Aap ka Faisla’ on Zee TV telecast.
Few decades ago during my youth I had read that Hindus ate beef during Vedic times and I had thought it must be true for I read it in a prominent magazine. The lie had already been living for few decades; it was not a new found one…it was only being reinstated now lest people forget it.
How would it have originated? Some expert on ancient history of India would have had spread the lie using (or abusing?) the mass media or else no one would have believed in it for, most Hindus do not touch beef till today but they give credence to acknowledged experts. It had to be an expert job to make it stick.
Questions that surfaced: Why would an eminent historian want to spread the lie? Why would other eminent historians support the big lie or maintain quiet letting the lie go unchallenged and let it assume the shape of truth with time and repetition? What could be their motive?
Who are these eminent historians whose close-knit network controlled NCERT [National Council of Educational Research & Training, Delhi] and ICHR [Indian Council of Historical Research, Delhi] until recently before they were thrown out? Who are these intellectuals who retained this unchallenged control on these central organizations; maintained their presence and influence on the mass media; for almost 50 years, during Nehru dynasty, after India’s independence? What did they gain by controlling these apex bodies?
Was their interest limited to systematic diversion of large financial resources allocated for historical research towards their personal gains that have now come to light after which the new government started taking initiative about their removal from key positions? Facts published in Eminent Historians: Their Technology, Their Line, Their Fraud, ASA, 1998 have remained unchallenged for, well documented truth could not be denied. Was their interest limited to controlling appointments of new aspirants in the faculty and thereby control subsequent generations of historians? Was their interest limited to retaining their representative influence on mass media and on elite circles that controlled India’s bureaucracy?
Was it to control the selection of history books that were to be taught in central schools in India? Was it to take control of writing history textbooks for schools? Was it to control the contents of those textbooks of history that would be taught to future generations of India? Was it to manage the funds allocated for such purposes as well as to manage the contents that should and that should not find place in those history books?
What was their common background and philosophy? What was their common belief system? What was their common objective and common agenda?
Their Game Plan: Why they did it all?
What was the big deal about beef eating that an eminent historian would want to make an issue of? Hindus do not slaughter cows and do not eat beef. Period. It does not harm any body. Why would one want to turn a non-issue into an issue? Why would the expert want to tell Hindus ‘no your ancestors did it’? Even if they did, so what? What would he gain by telling this today? If it were a truth, one could argue that he was only trying to re-establish the truth. When it was not a truth why would he want to clothe it as a truth? Why would he not support the truth? Why would he want to plant a lie?
There has to be a vested interest, or else he would not take all this trouble. What could that vested interest be? There has to be a much deeper reason that is probably not visible on the surface. There has to be some calculated methodology behind this. What could that be? Was it only one eminent historian who did it, an isolated case? Were there many more such eminent historians who indulged in planting different kinds of lies about Hinduism over a period of five decades?
Why would a European historian Dr. Koenraad Elst, who stayed on-site and investigated the entire scenario, describe their acts as ‘academic fraud and politicized scholarship’? Before going into all those complexities we need to first understand their background and their motivation. Who they really are? We may be familiar with the ways that Marxists adopt. They teach children from school age theories that these children are supposed to grow up with. Children are brainwashed right from the beginning of their educational career through their formative years so that they learn to close the windows of their mind and do not let light come in from any other direction and thus, they grow up to become the subjects of a State like ‘the horses in a cart with blinkers on their eyes’. The system relies on building up successive generations with a new belief system altogether.
Is such system devised and monitored by ordinary people? Or, is it a section of intellectuals who drive such an engine? Do the driver(s) of such engine(s) remain out of common view behind the smoke screen? If the life were a game of Chess they would be the master players and the masses would be the pawns!
Why is it that Marxist ideology has flourished in India at the educational institutions of repute, like Presidency College of Calcutta, and Jawaharlal Nehru University of Delhi? They work on an ideological level because they are mostly intellectually inclined people.
They have best known the value of media, its love for sensationalism and its lack of interest for investigative journalism. They have also known media’s awesome ability to report what is superficially seen and heard, and then let it percolate down through the minds and thought process of the masses. They have known best that the mass media has an enormous capacity to change the way people think by systematic and periodical repetition of a particular thought process. They had understood that Hinduism had been ‘inwardly inclined’ and it has failed to appreciate the significance of media in today’s world. This lack of appreciation has imbibed in them, apathy towards countering adverse publicity or incorrect publicity hurting them.
They have observed the Hindu psyche that it harbors tolerance to the level of absurdity and then lets the steam off in a volcanic attempt.
They have known well that a lie repeated over and again through the media can soon assume the form of truth and these intellectual strategists have exploited it to the core. They have known well that media have assumed significant ability of becoming the opinion makers in communication driven world of today.
Post-British India’s first Prime Minister Nehru’s known affinity towards Marxism and well-funded JNU (Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi) provided them a respected and stable forum for growth and propagation of their belief system. India with its newfound independence, low-level literacy and high-level poverty created an ideal breeding ground for this ideology. They drew their political backing from the Nehru dynasty, which ruled India for 50 years after British left and with that they had access to adequate funding for their projects.
Why would this close-knit network of Marxist historians with a base at JNU and in close association with AMU (Aligarh Muslim University) would want to work in a specific direction, supporting each other, through their work and continued media presence? What was that specific direction and with what intent? What could have been their goal? What would have they wanted to achieve by it? Before getting into this let us see what they were up against. Their strategy had to be designed to meet that challenge.
They are the historians who could draw the lessons from history better than any one else could. They did not fail to recognize the fact that all pagan civilizations had practically disappeared from the earth with the spread of Islamic and Christian imperialism. They carried no illusion either that one and only one of those major pagan civilizations that survived was Hinduism. Though Hindu States one-by-one surrendered after considerable resistance to Islam’s single-minded obsessive campaign against non-Muslims (Jihad) yet the Hindu society held together.
They have understood it well that there remains at the root a different kind of value system that has given extraordinary strength to the foundation of Hinduism and that has supported the structure of Hinduism through the ages immemorial. Being historians they have understood better than anyone else that such a structure could be demolished only if the foundation could be substantially weakened. They have already seen how difficult a task it had been, given that with all its might and backing Islamic and Christian imperialism could make only major dents into Hinduism but could not wipe it out, given more than one thousand years to work on one objective. Being intellectual strategists they have known that Marxism could make its way through educated mass of Hindus in a large way only when they start distrusting the fundamentals of their own belief system.
What could be the significance of choosing cow and beef as one of the target issues in this context? Forced conversion of Hindus into Islam and Christian Inquisition in Goa made it a point to make Hindus eat beef as a measure of their change in faith. Why Islamic imperialists chose to make cow as the target? It was symbolic, an attempt to cut the strong bond. Use of sword helped but did not succeed fully.
Marxists have learnt the lesson from this. Besides they were not swordsmen, they were men and women who used their ‘pen’ as their sword. They knew it works better in today’s world! So they planted the lie that Hindus ate beef in Vedic times. This was designed to uproot the faith among the English educated Hindus that their faith was unfounded. Marxists chose to hit at the very base of the value system. For they knew, that is the way to cut people off their roots.
Question arises what is the relevance of this value system in today’s world and why was it instituted since time immemorial? Has it been simply a matter of religious faith? Or was there a much more deeper cause? The seers of ancient India who instituted such prohibitions, did they have any firmer grounds? Were they working towards the larger interest of the humanity in a farsighted manner? Were there any such grounds that could re-enforce faith of masses into the doctrines of yesteryears with renewed commitment than ever before?
Why would Hindu Seers forbid Cow Slaughter?
Dr. Dean Ornish has received considerable popularity in recent days. Newsweek wrote: “Dr. Ornish’s work could change the lives of millions…at the end of the year most patients reported that their chest pains had virtually disappeared: For 82% of the patients arterial clogging had reversed. They started to feel better almost immediately, and today they feel great. Dr. Ornish’s patients are thrilled with their new lives. By the standards of conventional medicine, the impossible has happened.”
The same very Dr. Ornish writes: But when I first began conducting research in 1977, the idea that coronary heart disease could be reversed was thought to be impossible. Equally impossible was the idea that everyday people living in the real world could make and maintain comprehensive changes in diet and lifestyle. “Even if heart disease could be reversed, you have an unstable theory-because no one can follow your diet,” said many foundations and government agencies that we asked to help fund our study at that time. Similarly, many cardiologists told me, “We can’t get our patients to eat less red meat or even to take their medications. You expect them to give up meat completely? And start exercising? And practice stress management techniques? And quit smoking? And come to regular group support meetings? It’s too hard. Impossible. Forget it. No way.”
They were cardiologists speaking from their years of experience with many patients. They were talking of patients in a communication age where all kinds of information were readily available. They were speaking of American patients of modern days, the literate patients, the well-informed patients, the scientifically inclined or at least scientifically conscious patients! Compare these with patients thousands of years ago when literacy in the society would not be as common as it is today in America. We are speaking of the age when scientific information would not travel from one place to other at the drop of an eyelid as it happens today with the help of electronic media! Think of the difficulty, physicians of those olden days would be facing in convincing their patients to give up red meat totally!
Why did Vedic sages prohibit cow slaughter? Were they inspired only by religious sentiments or did they deliberately give it religious clothing? Why were they against cow slaughter to start with?
Were they aware of the undesirable effect of red meat consumption on our physiology? Did they want to stop people from consuming red meat totally?
Were they aware that everyone would not listen to medical advice? Did they realize that even if people heed to such advice there will be only few and they too would be inconsistent in their adherence to such caution?
Were they aware that such restrictions would soon be forgotten with time and place? Did they realize that such cautionary restrictions would not be remembered well and followed strictly generations after generations?
Were they aware that with passage of time each newer generation would consider itself more advanced than its prior generation and thus, there would be a tendency to undo the do’s promulgated by earlier generation, a phenomenon that is quite common place today?
Were they aware that only way to unite all and make it abiding was to make it a matter of religious injunction? And in doing this, were they working in the larger interest of the community? Were they aware that only way to effectively stop consumption of red meat was to prohibit cow slaughter altogether, the cow being the largest source of red meat called ‘beef’ today?
Were they aware that only a total religious injunction would be carried through ages beyond count, generations after generations, so long the civilization with that religious faith would survive?
In placing such religious injunctions, were they working in larger interest of the humanity?
These eminent historians were not planting a lie without a purpose. Indirectly they are telling us that we need have no inhibitions against consuming beef. What they were aiming at is that in time to come it would not matter to us when we too will start consuming beef.
Forced conversion of Hindus into Islam and Christian Inquisition in Goa made it a point to make Hindus eat beef as a measure of their change in faith. These eminent historians wanted to achieve that goal through conviction not torture.