: Hindutva discovery of
ancient India
…
D.Raghunandan
Delhi Science Forum &
President, All India Peoples Science Network
(raghunandan.d@gmail.com)
A special symposium on science and technology (S&T) in ancient
India as gleaned through Sanskrit texts was organized as a side event at
the 102nd Indian Science Congress held in Mumbai in January 2015. The
symposium itself, with an obvious Hindutva agenda, and the claims made
there, generated headlines both nationally and globally as the organizers
may have hoped, but for very different reasons. Far from highlighting
important contributions in ancient India, or uncovering hitherto unknown
facts, the symposium presentations proffered fantastic claims showing a
complete inability or disinclination to distinguish between science and
history on the one hand and mythology and sophistry on the other.
According to numerous press reports that were not contradicted,
and reports of press conferences addressed by paper presenters and
symposium organizers (copies of papers were not made available), one
presentation claimed that ancient India possessed advanced aviation
technology as far back as 7000 BC, including huge 40-engined aircraft
that could even undertake inter-planetary travel. In response to
subsequent objections that this was simply impossible, the presenter said,
“Modern science is not scientific.” Another presentation claimed that futuristic
surgical techniques are recorded in the Susruta samhita “not later than
1500 BC,” and have also been mentioned in the Rig Veda “considered as
first text of universe (sic), created not later than 6000 BC.”
All this came after several other such claims were made by
Hindutva proponents on previous occasions (see
http://www.firstpost.com/politics/plastic-surgery-to-ivf-things-bjp-sayshum-indiawaale-had-before-the-world-did-1833759.html
for a listing of
many such hindutva claims). In his now notorious speech at a hospital
function in Mumbai, Prime Minister Narendra Modi himself said ancient
India knew advanced plastic surgery techniques as could be seen from
the god Ganesha having an elephant’s head attached to a human body,
and also knowledge of in vitro fertilization since, in the Mahabharata,
Kunti had given birth to Karna outside the womb.
A storm of criticism in the media and from scientists in India (mostly
anonymous) and abroad to these and other claims, objected to
unscientific statements, mixing of history and mythology, and assertions
being made without proper evidence, the cornerstone of the scientific
method and of the Indian Science Congress itself. Anyone who thought
the criticism would have embarrassed Hindutva proponents was quickly
proved wrong.
And to show that these were not stray comments by “fringe
elements,” a string of unapologetic comments followed by Union
Government Ministers and leading lights of various Sangh Parivar
affiliates, directly or indirectly defending the views expressed at the
symposium, or making additional assertions along the same lines,
revealing a determined effort to reinforce what was evidently an
ideological campaign.
Former Minister in the Vajpayee-led NDA government and present
Governor of Uttar Pradesh, Mr.Ram Naik, in his valedictory address to the
Congress, felt the need to stress that ancient India had made huge strides
in sciences like medicine, astronomy, mathematics and astrology
(emphasis added), and that he “pitied those who are ashamed of our
history,” which none of the critics had said they were. Former BJP
President and now Home Minister and No.2 in the Cabinet Rajnath Singh
said after the Congress that local pundits or astrologists should be
consulted rather than NASA scientists for astronomical predictions on
eclipses and such, making one wonder if the government would so advise
ISRO for the next launch to the Moon or to Mars!
The above developments make clear that this was a resolute
attempt by Hindutva proponents to put forward a specific point of view. It
is argued here that taken together, these different claims and assertions
amount to a cohesive set of formulations which, for want of a better term,
may be termed the Hindutva narrative on science in ancient India. It is
also perhaps a harbinger of a determined ideological campaign of
considerable significance for contemporary intellectual and political
discourse in India.
The present essay seeks to unpack this narrative and examine its
implications.
Concerted Hindutva narrative Several distinct yet interconnected
propositions are discernible in this narrative.
First is the claim to antiquity, the idea that Vedic (or Sanskritic)
Hindu civilization and its later evolutionary manifestations, seen as
congruent Indian civilization, is the oldest civilization in the world, that
knowledge of science and technology here pre-dated and was far in
advance of that in other civilizations, and that key breakthroughs in these
fields were achieved here much before their appearance elsewhere.
Second, as this antiquity itself shows, knowledge creation in ancient India
was a purely indigenous process and other civilizations borrowed
knowledge from India, often without acknowledgement, thus establishing
the inherent superiority of Hindu civilization compared to all others. Third,
that India would have retained this superiority had it not been for loot and
suppression by alien cultures with other faiths, but can reclaim its
greatness now by regaining and reasserting Hindu cultural supremacy.
Fourth, that modern historical and general intellectual understanding in
India and elsewhere with regard to science and technology in ancient
India is a distorted, pro-Western and secularized creation, which has
underplayed and deliberately belittled Vedic Hindu civilization’s
contributions to science, and which has been propagated particularly in
India by a westernized, mainly Leftist, elite who have internalized the
colonial mindset. Hence, evidence advanced to contradict Hindutva claims
on science in ancient India is intrinsically suspect and reflect precisely
those anti-biases that the Hindutva narrative seeks to overcome. The
latter two propositions are often presented as sub-texts, and their fullthroated
articulation in the form of a campaign is probably yet to come.
It is argued in this essay that the claims and evidence advanced in
support of each of these propositions violate accepted disciplinary
principles and practices in both history and science. It is further argued
that, while some of this could be attributed to naivety or ignorance of
these disciplines and of earlier work done in them, the cohesive
messaging and assertiveness of the Hindutva narrative suggest that
Hindutva forces believe, and will sooner or later explicitly and concretely
insist, that these propositions are true regardless of any evidence to the
contrary, all such evidence being presumed to be a product of the very
biases which are sought to be countered by the Hindu nationalist
narrative.
Nature of evidence Let us first examine the nature of the
evidence adduced as basis for these claims and assertions. The paper on
aviation in ancient India presented at the Mumbai Congress by one
Captain Anand J. Bordas, said to be a retired principal of a pilot training
facility, may be taken as an illustrative case. Capt. Bordas’ passion for
proclaiming the superiority of ancient Hindu civilization clearly exceeded
his knowledge of both aeronautics and historiography.
According to Capt Bordas, the claims about aircraft in the Vedic
period were based on Sanskrit texts by the sage Bharadwaja, the putative
progenitor of the gotra or clan by that name, “at least 7000 years ago.”
The text in question, “Vymanika Prakaranam,” turns out to be one familiar
to Indian scholars. It was seriously studied for over a year in 1974 by a
team of scientists, engineers and Sanskrit scholars including renowned
aerospace engineer Prof.H.S.Mukunda of the Indian Institute of Science,
Bengaluru. The IISc study found that the text in Sanskrit and its
translation into English authored by one G.R.Josyer, published around
1920, was written in contemporary rather than Vedic-period Sanskrit. As
stated by Josyer in the book, the Sanskrit verses themselves had been
dictated by one Subbaraya Shastry, who was given to similar flashes of
inspiration, who had claimed in turn that they had been “revealed” to him
by Sage Bharadwaja. After scrutiny of the different descriptions and
drawings in the book, the IISc team concluded that the text showed
“complete lack of understanding of the dynamics of the flight of heavier‐
than‐air craft,” defied all principles of aerodynamics, and “none of the
planes [described or drawn] has properties or capabilities of being flown.”
(Report of this IISc study is available with its authors)
Captain Bordas basing his entire presentation on a single text
stated to be a “revelation,” whose provenance itself is suspect or at least
indeterminate, and which was not assessed critically, is a fatal flaw. To be
taken seriously, historiography demands not only textual references, that
too from multiple authenticated sources, but also requires support from
other kinds of evidence such as artifacts, archeological finds and so on. In
as complex a subject as aviation, there should surely also be some
evidence from the period in question of knowledge and practices in
aerodynamics, materials, manufacturing techniques and so on.
The Hindutva champions, however, appear not to have any
conception of, or to care much about, what constitutes acceptable
evidence or how to assess evidentiary value. Hence the leap from the
imaginative notion of god Ganesha having an elephant’s head to the
inference that this “proves” knowledge of advanced cosmetic surgery in
ancient India, and the leap from the legend of Karna’s immaculate
conception or the birth of the Kauravas from parts of Kunti’s discarded
womb to the conclusion that ancient India “must have known” of in vitro
fertilization or stem-cell research. Half and half making one-and-a-half
which is said to be four!
Stories of immaculate conception abound in myths and legends
across civilizations, and mythical half-man half-beasts too are very
common in other ancient civilizations, for instance the Minotaur (head of a
bull on body of a man), the Centaur (human face and neck, horse’s body),
the Chimera (with a lion’s head and body, a goats head arising from the
torso, and a snake for a tail). Did all these civilizations too have
knowledge of cosmetic surgery? Was in vitro fertilization a universally
known technique?
The issue of antiquity When challenged thus, the Hindutva
narrative skirts the question by asserting that whatever other civilizations
may have known, India knew it first, among other reasons (such as the
outstanding brilliance and far-sightedness of the ancient Hindus) because
ancient Vedic civilization is the oldest in the world. The claim to antiquity
of the Hindu civilization is in turn based on a far earlier date being
ascribed to Vedic-Sanskritic texts without substantiation, and sometimes
to taking literally the periodization claimed within the great epics, myths
or legends, even while refuting the dating arrived at by historians.
In the papers presented at the Congress, as well as in numerous
other articles, books and Hindutva literature, the period 6,000-7,000 BC is
frequently cited, in turn based on the Rig Veda or other text being
ascribed to such a historical period. The dating of the Sushruta Samhita to
“around 1500 BC” by the ayurvedic physician Dr.Sawant at the
symposium, while most authorities put it at around 500-600 BC, also has
no reasoning other than mere assertion.
Most academic historians date the Rig Veda to roughly 1,200-2,000
BCE, which Hindutva proponents simply abhor, with Prof.Romila Thapar
being their bête noir in this regard. Hindutva arguments in favour of dates
several thousand years earlier, are mostly founded on suppositions and
assertions, circular arguments such as dating Rama’s or Krishna’s time
periods based astrological references in relevant epic literature, deducing
a very early date from these, often taking literally a yuga-based age, and
thus “showing” that the Rig Veda “could not possibly have been later”
than this date and hence “must be” several thousand years before that!
(Just google “Rig Veda date Romila Thapar” and see the Hindutva
websites and blogs tumble out, full of assertions and vituperation against
her and anybody else with a differing viewpoint!) It is way beyond the
scope of this essay to delve into the dating question more thoroughly.
Suffice it to say that the real issue is not the date itself but what methods
are used to arrive at one, what evidence is used and whether this stands
up to scrutiny according to accepted historiography.
Let us turn our attention to the motivation for insisting on maximum
antiquity for Vedic-Sanskritic Hinduism, particularly as gleaned through
Sanskrit texts, and especially as regards science and technology and
knowledge creation in general. Three major promptings may be identified
and are briefly discussed here.
Firstly, there is the familiar Hindutva project to galvanize “Hindu
pride,” overcome past “humiliations” in the form of conquests or
subjugation by outsiders of different faiths, and re-build confidence for the
future, by projecting Vedic Hinduism as the most ancient, advanced and
knowledgeable of all civilizations. But this Hindutva endeavour itself is not
a new one, and harks back more than a century and a half to the early
stages of the national movement in India against colonialism. These early
efforts by intellectuals in India, and by several abroad, aimed to uncover
and translate into European languages ancient Indian, mostly Sanskrit,
texts in philosophy, metaphysics and the sciences so as to showcase the
greatness of Indian civilization. Rediscovering ancient Indian knowledge
and capabilities had an important role in the struggle against colonialism.
(Franz Fanon’s brilliant essay ‘On National Culture’ in The Wretched of the
Earth eloquently discusses this, and its pitfalls.)
However, as so often happens in the midst of such revivalist fervour
in India, there was also much myth-making, pseudo-history and
“unearthing” of a mythical golden past with a common thread of placing
all these events in an improbably ancient past. So pervasive and
noticeable was this phenomenon that sociologists even coined a term for
it: “ancientization”!
Secondly, in the Hindutva version, this traditionalism is not just
about nostalgia and projecting a past with great achievements, but also
about promoting uncritical acceptance of the Hindutva version of Indian
history. In the Hindutva narrative, most historians come with euro-centric
baggage if they are Western or are “Macaulay putra,” sons of Macaulay.
You don’t need evidence because we say it was so. Remember the debate
on the historicity of the Ram Temple in Ayodhya? It is our faith that Rama
was born at this very spot, therefore it MUST be so. Are the Hindutva
forces heading in the same direction regarding science in ancient India? Is
scientific evidence considered irrelevant in the face of belief, just as
historical evidence is?
Vedic-Sanskritic Exclusivity Thirdly, a little noticed aspect of
the emphasis on Sanskrit texts. The obvious motivation here is that
Sanskrit texts from ancient India would almost exclusively focus on Vedic
or early Hinduism, not allowing any scope for distractions about what
Indian thinkers learned from Greeks, Romans, Arabs, Persians and from
Central Asia or China in the late ancient or medieval periods. The
Hindutva narrative has no place for composite culture or even for cultural
exchanges. And it speaks of Indian contributions to what was even in
ancient times a global knowledge creation process, with all cultures
learning from each other, as if others had stolen Indian knowledge as
Dr.Harsh Vardhan alleged with regard to Algebra. Al Khwarizmi himself,
who brought algebra to world attention and who is therefore often
mistakenly credited with the innovation, generously acknowledged the
Indian primacy. Similarly, the Arabic translation around 800 AD of the
Sushruta Samhita is named Kitab-i-susrud.
The exclusive attention paid to Sanskrit texts also completely
ignores writings in Pali and Prakrit in ancient India, thus excluding
epistemological and methodological streams from Jaina and Buddhist
traditions. Reputed mathematics scholars and historians (see for instance
S.G.Dani {Prof at TIFR, Mumbai}, “Ancient Indian mathematics: a
conspectus,” available at
http://www.ias.ac.in/resonance/Volumes/17/03/0236-0246.pdf and
“Mathematics in India: 500 BCE-1800 CE” by Kim Plokfer, Princeton
University Press, 2009; a highly instructive extract is available at
http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8835.html) have argued that this would
mean leaving out of consideration important knowledge and
mathematical traditions since Jaina and Buddhist scholarship had several
concerns that were significantly different from those of the Vedic
Brahmins, such as a lack of interest in if not antipathy towards ritual
performances which were major promptings for so much of Vedic
mathematics. Whether deliberate or stemming from ignorance, this
certainly echoes the insularity and arrogance of the eurocentrism that
Hindutva forces love to decry. Of course, Hindutva proponents are fully
capable of turning around and arguing that Buddhism and Jainism are
after all part of the larger Hindu family, that all indigenous faiths are but
Hinduism in different forms, never mind the bitter doctrinaire disputes
and sometimes bloody rivalry between supporters of these different
religions.
Science in ancient India not unknown One of the key organizers
of the special symposium at the Science Congress, Dr.Gauri Mahulikar of
the Sanskrit Department, Mumbai University, which also vetted all the
papers presented, stated that "so far, Sanskrit is essentially considered a
language of religion and philosophy, but the fact is that it also talks about
science including physics, chemistry, geography, geometry etc. There is a
lot of scientific information available in these texts and historical
documents that we want to explore." (Times of India, 3 Jan 2015).
This strand of the Hindutva narrative that contributions of ancient
India to science were totally suppressed or unknown until Hindutva
proponents “discovered” them is bizarre. Like Columbus “discovering”
America with numerous indigenous peoples already inhabiting it! One
may just forgive Hindutva activists who perhaps learned everything on
this subject only from shakhas or in books written by one of their own
mentors. But surely those engaged in supposedly scholarly work, and
eminent leaders, Ministers no less, should be more aware of, and at least
not deny, the extensive work done by scholars in India and abroad on
science in ancient India.
This work, especially from the second half of the 20th century onwards,
has been based on carefully evaluated evidence of different kinds from
multiple sources, including texts in Sanskrit and other classical Indian
languages, both in original and in translations in Arabic, Latin or other
languages. The assiduous research reflected in the exhaustive work by
D.D.Kosambi, D.P.Chattopadhyaya, J.D.Bernal, Joseph Needham
(incidentally all Marxist scholars) and numerous others are too well known
to need repetition.
The first thing expected from serious scholars is a study of extant
literature on the subject, and to begin where others have left off. To claim
originality where none exists is the worst kind of academic and
intellectual dishonesty. Is this the kind of thinking or scholarship that
Hindutva leaders want to encourage? Or an example they wish to set for
the country, especially the youth?
If the Hindutva goal were simply to highlight achievements in
ancient India, there is no shortage of real, pioneering knowledge creation,
such as the orbital motion of the planets relative to the sun, the
inclination of the earth’s axis, the place value system, early estimations of
the value of π, the decimal system including the zero, algebra and
different aspects of trigonometry and early forms of calculus, advances in
medicine, metallurgy and so on. When all these exist and can be proudly
proclaimed, regardless of childish me-first games which beyond a point do
not further the understanding of either history or science, what is the
need for Hindutva votaries to search for and assert fictitious or imaginary
claims? Such fantastic claims only serve to devalue real achievements by
reflecting scepticism from the former to the latter. Far from adding to the
glory of Indian civilization, Hindutva advocates are embarrassing the
nation and doing a huge disservice to its great contributions to science in
ancient times and to the work Indian scientists are doing today.
A couple of important aspects may be touched upon in conclusion.
The very act of organizing the symposium at the 102nd Indian
Science Congress portends bad days ahead for science in India. It shows
that, contrary to the forward-looking development-oriented outlook that
they proclaim, Hindutva forces do not mind causing immense damage to
knowledge creation and to major scientific institutions in pursuit of their
real ideological agenda. Truly worrying too is the silence of the Congress
organizers, of scientists present there, and of premier scientific bodies, on
this abuse of the Science Congress and the misuse of governmental
power to impose this regressive agenda. People in India, especially the
poor in rural and forest areas, have in the past few decades become
resentful of various developmental programmes or projects that have
adverse impacts on their lives, such as large dams, nuclear power plants,
GM crops and foods, pesticides and other hazardous chemicals. People
have also become deeply suspicious of what they regard as “sarkari
(official) scientists” who are fielded by government to defend such
projects and claim they pose no dangers, even when evidence and the
opinion of other experts strongly indicate the opposite. This is leading to
mounting distrust of science itself. The symposium at the Science
Congress, the litany of unscientific comments by Ministers and other
Hindutva leaders, and the mute response of establishment scientists
towards these developments only add to the growing perception that
scientists owe less allegiance to unbiased evidence-based findings and
work than to tailoring their opinions according to the wishes of their
political masters and kow-towing to them.
The key point at issue about science in ancient India is not whether
the Hindutva proponents are right or not about this or that claim. Such
questions are not difficult to study and to answer, provided one follows
well-known scientific procedures for conducting research, testing a
hypothesis or floating one, and arriving at conclusions. Science and
history are serious subjects, calling for rigour, openness, scrutiny by
peers, and finally acceptance, rejection or modification of hypotheses.
Mythologies are not the same as history, and can never have the same
ontological status as science. In fact, one should not expect them to.
Anthropologists have long argued that mythologies have a different social
function, and their significance is not to be assessed by their historical
“truth” value.
Finally, the battle underway is not just science versus mythology,
false claims against historical fact, but a battle for academic and
intellectual rigour, for the method of science and of historiography, and
ultimately for a scientific attitude and critical questioning, as against blind
acceptance of authority whoever that may be or howsoever exalted. That
last is the authoritarian road, which leads to a very bleak future, however
glorious our past.
