but it is...

Tweet

Whatsapp

The novel written by Rahul Sankrityayan ‘From Volga to the Ganga’ is speaking high of Aryans. Based on this perception, professor Karunanandham is answering the questions raised by the reader. (Continuation of the last article)

Rahul Sankrityayan is narrating the story through his Brahmin characters in his book, ‘From Volga to the Ganga’. Not even one Sudra or Demon or Asura in his characterization.

That is, he has created this book with brahmins as protagonists. Indeed, in the third chapter, he narrates the story through a brahmin called ‘Amirthashvan’. Even he is saying that what Kshatriyas did was wrong.

In the fourth chapter, ‘Puruhithan’, ‘pradhanan’ in the fifth chapter and the most important character ‘Angeera’ in the sixth chapter. All these men are brahmins. Slight contradiction in his thoughts can be found only in the seventh and eight chapters.

‘Sudharsh’ and ‘Pravahan’ are not Brahmins but Kshatriyas. While mentioning about Pravahan, he is stating that he introduces the religion of ‘Brahma’ to cheat people. He is noting that the Vedic philosophy of ‘everything is Brahmam’ was set to force by Pravahan.

All the hymns in Veda are featuring ‘brahmins are superior to that of God and even apprise that Brahmins are capable of controlling God, and only they have the rights to donate and worship.’ In the Vedanta created by Pravahan, it is cited that ‘divinity is not only for brahmins but for all’.

Citing, ‘divinity is not only for brahmins but for all’ cannot be a deception in any way. Wasn’t this betrayal citing divinity is only for brahmins? Wasn’t this betrayal that ‘yagna’ originated through Veda? But Rahul Sankrityayan’s characters didn’t state anywhere that all above is deception, but how can he says Pravahan philosophy are deceiving the peoples. Kshatriyas points apparent wrong to Sankrityayan’s but seems correct if Brahmins said the same. Then it is true that he speaks in Selective consciousness.

Rahul Sankrityayan, who stated all these, is talking about the period of Buddha but not about Buddha and did not explain the situation of the society of that period through Buddha.

He is not citing Chanakya explicitly rather, he cites that Chandra Gupta Maurya was a disciple of Chanakya. Rahul Sankrityayan is thrusting history by justifying puranic stories.

Harshvardhan wrote three plays - Nagananda, Ratnavali and Priyadarshika. But Rahul Sankrityayan is stating that the plays were actually written by bards to which Harshvardhan added his name.

But what is the proof for all these? And where is the proof for the saying that Chanakya moulded Chandragupta Maurya? There is no evidence for all these except these Puranas said by them. Rahul, who accepts this, criticizes Harshavardhan alone. 

Why? Because bards are brahmins. Can you state that poems and plays can be written only by brahmins? Is it the thought that only brahmins can create anything with principles? People, apart from Brahmins, cannot create such plays?

Trying to record history, Rahul Sankrityayan say nothing of brahmins attempt to kill Harshvardhan, Xuan Zang in the ‘Prayagai conference’! The two was plotted to be killed even in Kanauji. Brahmins set fire to bandal.

Traitors are coming with knives to kill Xuan Zang, and king Harshvardhan and the captives are all brahmins. Rahul Sankrityayan who added many flavours to make his story interesting if he had added this, the plot would have been spiced up.

Rahul Sankrityayan, who wanted to make his story interesting, its obscure that why he concealed brahmins venture to kill the king. Even though he is a big left progressive thinker; it is making us think that his root of Brahministic feelings is making him to conceal things.

He is praising Ashwagosha, but why? Because he was brahmin by birth; that’s why. He is stating that he embraced Mahayana Buddhism with generosity. But the truth was, Mahayana Buddhism was infiltrated and manipulated by brahmins. Instead of saying that brahmins are experts in infiltrating and manipulating things, he is telling that exclusively superior and Ashwagosha has a significant role in creating Mahayana Buddhism.

But Buddha, who created Buddhism & about Kanishkar, has not mentioned. Rahul Sankrityayan chooses brahmin characters. He is citing them as if they were reformists and those who came to change slavery. Through a character called Dhurmugan, he is interrogating, ‘why don’t Harshvardhan liberate these slave women?’

Harshvardhan belongs to Buddhism. Several times he was plotted to be killed. But they are featuring Harshvardhan as the last Hindu king. Even then, he is speaking only of drawbacks.

Weigh well the good of each, his failings closely scan,

As these or those prevail, so estimate the man.

Says Thirukural, but it is never followed. Grievances are sought in the stories where ever there are Kshatriyas and Buddhists.

 He is seeing fulfillment where ever a Brahmin comes. Is this treatment fair? Proclaiming that Asuras had slave trade and prostitution based on these tales is nothing but opinions created out of selfishness and creativity. History should be based on truth, not on assumptions.

I appreciate Rahul Sankrityayan as a historian. At the same time, as a novelist, I see him as a person with natural Brahmin thoughts—more in particular, an known to survive Brahmin sense.

The novel ‘From Volga to the Ganga’ was given this title as India was in a friendly relation with Russia. Didn’t this title is enough to check your loyalty? This holds the answer to the first three questions.

Work divisions, slave trade, exist in all civilizations. But it cannot be seen among nomadic tribes. And how can you ask that Aryans are superior by taking this into account? How Aryans behaved, after forming a government, wasn’t that most important?

It should be noted that How Aryans behaved after forming a government. Aryan kings made Sudras untouchable. Though Asuras have various working skills, they lacked the ability to battle. Isn’t it natural to be defeated by Aryans as they lacked the ability to battle?

Is it fair to justify your valor in this kind of battle? Aryans have kept the people who work in all four varnas as fourth. There is no justification for keeping the labourers fourth and blaming the social setup of Asuras.

Its you people who went to Asuras; Asuras didn’t come to your side. Ram went south, where Raavana ruled. Raavana did not go and wage war in Ayodhya. What is Mahabharata telling? You are going to different sites and fighting against the native people. Who is the conqueror? Who is the infiltrator? It is native kings who constructed and lived-in forts.

 He is Asura. Who came and told that thunder would strike and destroy the forts? Aryans are not indigenous, he is an outsider who doesn’t know any maturity over civilization, a barbarian. These rootless vagabonds have nothing to lose. He would do any kind of incivility. So, the fall of big civilization was because of these crudes.

The fall of Egypt civilization was because of Assyrians, and Roman civilization declined because of Babylonian crudes. Same way, the Indus valley civilization was destroyed by Aryans and not by any other big civilization of that time.

Its an utter folly to proclaim that all the victorious people is embedded with high nobility. We always expect good to be successful but necessarily not all those successful are good.

(concluded)

- Prof. Karunanandham

Translated by Maruvarthini. P

(This article was published in Tamil Magazine 'Puratchi Periyar Muzhakkam', January 2021)

 You can send your articles to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Tweet

Whatsapp