The Constitution
of India begins with the phrase, “We the People”.
Who are these
people who so emphatically say that they are ‘We’ or they were ‘We’?
I can listen to
some voices who are trying to educate me. They are probably saying that the
answer follows in the Constitution in Articles 1 to 8 of the Constitution. The
people belonged to a territory which is defined in the Constitution itself.
Well. It is a
convincing answer. Now, let us sing our national anthem in praise of the
nation.
Jan Gan Man
Adhinayak Jai hai,
Bharata Bhagya
Vidhata.
Punjab, Sind,
Hey, stop here.
Sind is not covered in the territorial limits defined in the Constitution.
Again, the
answer is heard. The nation is alive. If it is not there, then it will be
included as it has reference to our History.
It seems that I
am not fully educated and intellectually matured to raise some questions and
seek the answer.
It is said that
the territories, as defined in the Constitution of India, was considered to be
a sink of Gold. Some people say that once the territory was known as a Golden
Sparrow.
The people tell
that Ghaznavi came to India merely to loot India because the Indian temples
were surfeited with gold ornaments. Ghaznavi looted the temples. Ghaznavi also
took away many artisans. He avoided direct battles. He exempted his subjects
from any taxes for three years because of the wealth which he had taken away from
India.
What was the
form of the wealth which Ghaznavi took away from India? Were the artisans also
the wealth of the nation? How did the artisans add to the wealth of the nation?
Was that wealth grown in the fields? If the wealth was the agricultural
produce, then why did they not consume it and became strong? Did they sold the
produce of their fields to outsiders and obtained wealth from outside? Did they
cross their seas to sell their produce? Did the foreign traders come to buy
their products? If any such transactions did take place, who were the people
who dealt with that? Were they the Indian traders and merchants? What does
History say about those merchants?
The people again
tell that they indulged in spiritual wealth. The merchant’s wealth was never
their interest. There were rishis and saints and gurus.
Kindly tell us
the name of the rishis, saints and gurus. How many can the people of India tell
the names of the rishis who were the manas putras of Brahma? How many of them
can tell the names of the Saptarishis? If there had been no Ramayana, even the
villagers would not have been able to tell the names of Vashishta, Valmiki,
Bharadwaj, and others. No doubt, many people have a religious bent of mind, but
why do they not tell how there was so much wealth in India.
In the twentieth
century, the scholars of India talked about the Dalit Class. They say that they
were the most oppressed class. There were leaders like Guru Naryana, Jyotiba
Phule, B. R. Ambedkar. That is good. But how many leaders were there before
them who produced wealth for India? Was not the wealth of India the cause of
the invasion of Turks and English?
There were Dhana
Seths. There were Jagat Seths. Were Jagat Seths similar to Dhana Seths? No. As
far as my study goes, Jagat Seth title had emerged during the Mughal period. It
was the status granted by Mughal Nawabs. Manick Chand, a Marwari, was granted
the title of Jagat Seth by the Bengal Subedar.
J Mills wrote
The History of British India. In reaction to that, (yes it was a reaction), the
nationalist historians wrote India's History. By the middle of the twentieth
century, the Marxist Nationalist historians wrote the History of Dalits. They
gave the thesis that it was the Tribes who were first to raise the nationalist
flag. They talked about India's oppressed classes, the social vices, the caste-based
oppression which was somewhere borrowed from the analysis of Indian society
done by Imperialist historians. J Mills and Imperialist historians never wrote
History of India for India. They wrote the History to explain the activities of
the British Empire. They were clear about their agenda. Their agenda was to
learn about the culture of the people whom they were ruling and wanted to keep
them under their administration. They wanted to arrange their state activities
as per the understanding they acquired after evaluating the ground forces. They
selected the data as per their requirement and interpreted them as per their
agenda. Till 1803, they spoke respectfully of Maratha rulers. They feared
Marathas. They also feared Mughals. However, by 1757, they lost the fear of
Mughals. They were now directing the politics of the Mughals. By 1818, they
even lost the fear of Marathas. They had made Baji Rao II their pensioner. Gaikwad
and Solanki were their foreigner friends in political management of India.
At this stage, their anger was directed
towards the Brahmins. They found the culprits in Brahmin caste who had degraded
the Indian society, allowing the imperialist agenda to do the civilization work
in India. During this period, the Christian missionaries were allowed within
the territories of East India Company in India. The Christian Missionaries then
started finding India's social vices, which were quite loathsome for any
civilized society. The Missionaries targeted the religious practices like Sati,
the plight of widows, polygamy, female infanticide, and social discrimination
based on religion.
All the vices
and shortcomings were found in the society of India. However, none of them
spoke about the merchant class. They were used to acquire control over the
market. They were called undependable and unreliable. However, they were not
criticised as a social class. Blair Kling declared it as his discovery in 1976 that
there were entrepreneurs in India when he wrote the biography of Dwarakanath
Tagore. Kling deplored the non-availability of the original sources to write
about the Indian Businessman. Did the British administration not prepare any
reports on the merchant classes of India? Probably they had done that, but they
are hidden somewhere in the archives of British Parliament or the East Indian
Company records. On the other hand, we do not find any major work on the
merchants who were identified as the third section of the Hindu society as per
the caste structure of the Indian society.
In independent
India, History is taught. The citizens are told that the son of Babur was Humayun.
The son of Humayun was Akbar. Jahangir was the son of Akbar and father of
Shahjahan. Shahjahan was the father of Aurangzeb. When a young citizen is able to
recollect the family tree of the Mughal Empire, he is declared as a person who
knows his History. Such a knowledgeable citizen is the member of the group ‘We
the people’, who stands by India's Constitution. The members of the ‘We the
people’ group know the family tree of the Mughal dynasty. After that, he talks
about the caste structure of India, oppressed classes of India and socialism. He
is convinced that he has a glorious past because his forefathers were
spiritually advanced people. He is told that his aim in life is Purusharth
which includes Dharam, Artha, Kama and Moksha. To prove his worthiness to his
society, he pretends to do everything for Dharma and Moksha. Deeper below in
his heart, he seeks Artha but never declares it. He is told that History of
India tells that if you are an Indian, then you must work for Dharma and
Moksha. On the side-line, he is told that his forefathers were very rich.
However, he is not told about the class which had made his country prosperous
and wealthy.
The merchant and
business classes are now studied. However, they are not studied by the
historians of the universities of the history department. They are studied as
the case studies by the Management schools. Gurcharan Das in an introduction to
Marwaris by Thomas Timberg that "India was fortunate in having
communities who for centuries have known to conserve and grow their
capital." Gurcharan is not a historian, but when he says that he has a
hypothesis on communities, he emphasises the gap in the study of History of
India.
In the twentieth
century, in a taunt of the narratives of the Indians, there were the names of
Tata Birla and Dalmia. By the end of the twentieth century, the taunt was
compressed to Tata Birla, and Dalmia was forgotten. By the beginning of the
twenty-first century, the taunt is now changing, and it has become Ambani and
Adani. However, the reference to the community remains the part of the
narrative, but the subject of study in History. Management schools are
undertaking the work, but they do that in the form of case studies. Gurcharan
Das mentions such studies under the topic of the story of Indian Business.
Gurcharan mentions the names of Trautmann, Kanakalatha Mukund, Trithankar Roy,
Lakshmi Subramanian, Gregory Schopen, Donal Davis, Scott Levis, Sanjay
Subrahmanyan, Muzaffar Alam, Raman Mahadevan, and Medha Kudaisiya who studies
the business communities based on historical records. However, do the school
and college courses know about Pottdar, Thakurdas Purshotamdas, Birla, Bajaj,
Maheswaris, Aggarwal's, and their roles in the History of India? Can it be said
that the business communities themselves had influenced the writing in History
and directed all the attention to the political and social reformers? There is
no account in History to talk about the Indian Chaebol. In other words, there
is no emphasis on the role of the merchant Banias in Indian History. We learn
about the Bhai Makhan Shah the Gujarati Sikh trader of the seventeenth century.
We learn about the Parekh and their relation with the Mughal courts. We learn
about the inscriptions on the temples of devoted merchants. However, they are
not the subject of History.
The History Departments of the Indian Universities
believe that the agenda and goal of Independent India are to grow prosperous by
promoting the theme of Democracy and Socialism. Ramchandra Guha has commented
that the agenda of the study of the History Departments ends at 1947.
Books by Sumir Sharma
On Google Play
On Amazon
Posts
