Karnataka’s past and future

The battle for and about Karnataka’s past (and present) has eclipsed all other pressing issues related to the crippling learning deficit of two COVID-19 years, the devastating impact on the economy, from the most severe health crisis of the recent past. The urgency of tackling the past, and the imminent threat of climate change. The battle is being fought on two levels: majority crowds, mixed groups of religious heads, writers and politicians are ‘reclaiming’ historic sites and structures. The principle that is emerging is an adaptation of ‘Show me the person, and I will show you the law’. It’s “Show me a Muslim structure and I’ll find you a ‘Hindu’ past”.

claims and demands

Just as the word ‘encounter’ has become synonymous with the unlawful killings of suspects by the police, so the word ‘survey’ has entered our lexicon with the alarming threat of demolition. Not only is the Masjid-e-Aala at Srirangapatna built by Tipu in 1786-87 now claimed, but the Lingayat Mathadishas of North Karnataka now petitioned Karnataka Chief Minister BS Bommai to conduct a ‘survey’ of Pir Pasha Bangla Is. At Basavakalyan in Bidar district, claiming that it is the seat of the original 12th-century Anubhav Mandapa called by Basaveshwara.

Read also | no need to search Shivling Everyday in mosques: Mohan Bhagwat

Similarly, to establish its ‘Hindu’ origin, a ‘survey’ of the Assed Adbullahil Madani Mosque in Malali, Mangaluru has been sought. The Chief Minister has expressed his willingness to accept these demands.

The second level of battle has emerged in the form of recently ‘rewritten’ textbooks relating to social sciences and Kannada. Here too, the main goal is to control the story of Karnataka’s past and erase recent achievements (for example Karnataka fought and won for social justice in the last five decades). We should not be surprised that the demand for rewriting the textbook was first started by ‘troubled’ Brahmins (represented by the Karnataka State Brahmin Development Board). The Rohith Chakratirtha committee obliged to replace some texts and authors, and to rewrite parts of social science books so as to undo the ‘hurt feeling’. But unlike Muslim formations, which have been targeted for attack, for which now only appeals to legislation can be made, textbook revisions have seen unexpected reactions that the Bommai government would not be able to resolve so easily.

eroding inclusivity

Authors like Devanur Mahadeva, who represent the most innovative and complex in Kannada writing, cry for pain to be removed from the new textbooks. Six other authors have followed suit. They will not resort to burning or tearing books to make their point, but have made dignified pleas to be removed from a text that now featured KB Hedgewar’s speech translated into Kannada as ‘Nizavad Ideal Purush Yaragabeku’ Is? (Who should be an ideal role model’). What is their objection? Not even the fact that the translation of a didactic speech has been chosen over other fine and thoughtful original pieces of Kannada literature. His objection is also to the uniformity of newly inducted writers, which affects the achievements of the more inclusive Kannada literary sector over the past five decades.

Objections to the ‘rewriting’ of history volumes have also been rich and varied. For one, a prominent Mathadisha, Panditaradhya Swamy of Sanehalli, known for his own support and interest in theater and literature, has objected to the new portrayal of Basava as a ‘reformer’ of an existing Veerashaivism, Not as an existing Virashaivism. The founder of Lingayat religion who represented opposition to the Brahmanical system and its practices. The long-running fight over Lingayat Veerashaiva origins culminated in the demand for a separate religion in 2017, a movement that was successfully ended by the central government. Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the then Chief Minister BS Yediyurappa also started work on Basava’s Anubhav Mandap (which is being redeveloped) parallel to ‘Sanatan Pragatipara’, a progressive Hindu religion. At that time there was only a weak resentment among the writers and intellectuals of Karnataka. Do Panditaradhya Swamy’s objections now represent a possible rift between orange and saffron in Karnataka?

not enough. Perhaps as a balancing act, Education Minister BC Nagesh was seen respectfully presenting copies of the new textbooks to the head of the mighty Adi Chunchungiri (Vokaliga) Math, Nirmalananda Swamiji, for his approval. This was followed by Vokkaliga indignation against Chakratirtha’s derogatory attitude to the state poet Kuvempu’s naad geete (now the state song). Jnanpith award winning litterateur Kuvempu has been ‘owned’ by Vokkaligas for some time now.

questions and explanations

Then what is the future of Karnataka’s heritage? In a time when information is freely and abundantly available, can a textbook be the only carrier of information? At a time when chaos and disruption are too much for us, shouldn’t students be taught the basics of a historical disposition instead? That history is neither (mostly) about celebrating the glory of heroes, or avenging real and imaginary ‘historical wounds’, but an argument about the past, one that is thoughtful and critical of facts. based on interpretation? Also, the people who have been disenfranchised from the past – tribals, women, Dalits – don’t they deserve to explain the historical method that has excluded them?

I use the word explain intentionally because all arguments for textbook change have emphasized ‘true facts’. Thus, even those condemning Tipu Sultan, including Chakratirtha, have to admit that he made donations to protect the Sringeri Math from Maratha robbers and is remembered for this. Our children deserve to know how to interpret such facts along with the more disturbing legacies of his reign. First, the entire Indian past is not about religious conflicts between ‘Hinduism’ and Islam. And much more was happening: why our students need to know why Tipu is acknowledged as a restless modernist, why he was considered one of the bravest rulers of the 18th century who fought the British fought, but also when and how they were turned into ‘tyrants’. , What do the rich symbolism of Tipu’s court – for example his obsessive use of the tiger stripe – and indeed the adoption of Persian as the official language tell us about the quest for legitimacy? What does his collection of books tell us? What do we do with the technological innovations of his time? They also need to know why they are remembered as responsible for the conversions and persecutions, especially their enemies. Why did he support some non-Muslim religious people and institutions and not others? All of this involves historical thinking, not the assimilation of ‘facts’ that arouse either pride or disgust.

Second, if we must talk about religious conflicts in the past, let us include all, and especially the bloody conflicts between Shaivas, Veerashaivas and Jains in the medieval period. There is interesting material and literary evidence for this. For example, the Hero Stones (Veera Kallu) at Haveri, and the inscriptions and inscriptions on the Someshvara temple there, clearly show the defeat of the Jains and the destruction of Jain temples by the Veerashaivas. At other times, Jain temples were simply taken over and reused as Veerashaiva temples. The countryside is full of such examples.

Karnataka has valuable resources with which to initiate this dialogue among students, teaching them to think about cooperation and conflict, syncretism and dogma, much more than we currently have. And yes, as noted by renowned historian Ranjit Guha, Dharma is one of the richest archives of India. Should we waste these resources perpetuating some weak idea of ​​religious nationalism? Instead, we need to ask like educationist Krishna Kumar: Is there a way to be an Indian that is not nationalistic, not creating pride, jealousy or hatred, but understanding and inclusiveness, and tolerance for difference? I believe that the rich heritage of Karnataka provides this unique opportunity for both truthfulness and reconciliation.

Janaki Nair was a professor at the Center for Historical Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University until her retirement in 2020