Busting secular myths

09 June 2013

" Rama and Ayodhya "

Author: Meenakshi Jain

Publisher: Aryan Books, Rs 695

 [Meenakshi Jain’s book challenges the lordship of India’s ‘eminent' historians who indulge in the worst form of negationism to forward their pseudo-secular viewpoints, writes Rohit Srivastava]

Before LK Advani converted an Indian icon into a Hindu deity as he flexed his nationalist muscles astride a makeshift chariot, he was on his way to the destruction of an unused 16th century mosque in Ayodhya to reclaim the mythical glory of his Mother India.” Thus wrote Jawed Naqvi, India correspondent of Dawn, Pakistan, in an article on humour in religious discourse. The Indian icon in question is Rama, the most popular incarnation of Lord Vishnu and the most beloved deity for at least two millennia.

Naqvi would have us believe that Advani’s rath yatra made Rama a deity. He cannot see the hollowness of his claim, for if Rama in his own view was already an Indian icon (a symbol of reverence and devotion), it means he was already a deity.

Naqvi, like others, is in the business of negating and mocking the civilisational memory associated with Rama, and believes his minority status confers upon him the privilege to do so with impunity. 

Yet, he would not dare satisfy non-monotheistic curiosity on a fundamental confusion of Abrahamic dogma: Did the patriarch Abraham offer his son Ismail in sacrifice to God, or was it his son Isaac? Christians and Muslims both accept the historicity of the event and agree only one child was offered. 

Which one?

Over the past two decades, several Left-wing historians have indulged in high-voltage propaganda that Rama was not a deity before Tulsidas wrote Ramcharit Manas in the 16th century. The purpose, of course, is to discredit the movement for reclamation of his birthplace. For if there is no proof of Rama and his Ayodhya, the movement falls into disrepute.

Historian Meenakshi Jain has given a robust reply to those who question the historicity of Rama as deity, and provided ample historical proof of Ayodhya as the city of Rama. Activists may question the memory of a civilisation with superficial and politically-motivated arguments, but the book, Rama and Ayodhya, has demolished their case.

Jain leaves no stone unturned in collating all historical and literary evidence relating to Lord Rama. She has covered a vast corpus of literature from the eighth century onwards. 

The Pratihara dynasty, which ruled western and central India from the ninth to the 13th century, claimed descent from Lakshman, younger brother of Rama, and considered themselves defenders of India from mlechha (barbarian) invaders, and were proud of their victory over them. For four centuries they gave an intrepid fight to invaders.

The book covers the popularity of Rama in antiquity in three long chapters, citing evidence from literature, sculpture and epigraphy. 

The author has compiled her evidence State-wiseto conclusively prove Rama’s pan-national popularity throughout antiquity. 

The question of his becoming a deity only after the publication of Ramcharit Manas in the era of the Mughal emperor Akbar, has been answered with ample evidence to discourage even the most arrogant Leftist historian from repeating old lies again.

Some notable references include Varahamihira’s Brhatsamhita (sixth century AD) which formulates rules for making images of Rama. 

The Rama story finds mention in three early Buddhist texts, Dasharatha Kathanam (first-second century AD), Anamakam Jatakam and Dasharatha Jataka. 

The great poet-dramatist, Bhavabhuti (eighth century), a native of Vidarbha, wrote two dramas based on the Ramayan — theMahaviracharita and the Uttararamacharity; the latter contained the earliest verbatim quotations of verses from the Ramayan, according to Jacobi.

A Gupta period stone panel from Mathura shows Ravan shaking Mount Kailasa, a scene from the ‘Uttara Kanda’. A Gupta period brick temple at Bhitargaon, Kanpur (fifth century AD), has several terracotta panels, one of which depicts Rama and Lakshman seated and engaged in conversation.

M Zaheer, in his book on the Bhitargaon temple, mentions two terracotta reliefs showing scenes from the Ramayana: One has a woman offering alms to a giant man, clearly Ravan in disguise, while the other depicts a seated Rama and Sita.

The Rama cult was promoted by Madhavacharya Anandatirtha (variously placed between AD 1199-1278 and 1238-1317). He devoted seven chapters to the Ramayana story in the Mahabharat-tatparya-nirnaya and brought an image of the “world-conquering” Digvijaya Rama to the south.

Similarly, Narahari Tirtha, probably the same as Narasimha, is recorded in a Telugu epigraph dated AD 1293, as having set up the image of Rama, Sita and Lakshman in the Vaishnava temple near Chicacole, Ganjam district.

The Vayu Purana and the ‘Uttara Kanda’ mentioned two Kosalas, with Shravasti the capital of Uttara Kosala and Kausavati of Dakshin Kosala or Mahakosala. The two Kosalas were once believed to have been under the suzerainty of Rama, who installed his son Lava in North Kosala and Kusa in South Kosala.

The book is additionally important for the detailed analysis of the Allahabad High Court ruling on the Babri Masjid case. 

The motives and scholarship of many of our famed historians are hilariously exposed during the court proceedings. 

The book shows how an exclusive club of historians (Leftists, of course) have been making false claims of expertise to perpetuate their own agenda, to the detriment of true scholarship. This helps us understand why history has been taught so poorly in our schools colleges and universities — the professors have been taking liberties with truth. No wonder, a nation with such a rich history has some of the dullest history departments!

The Allahabad High Court noted the links between the academics representing the Sunni Central Waqf Board. 

Suvira Jaiswal, former Professor of the JNU, told the court, “I have not read Babarnama... It is correct to say that I am giving statement on oath regarding Babri Mosque without any probe and not on the basis of my knowledge, rather I am giving the statement on the basis of my opinion... Whatever (information) I gained with respect to the disputed site was on the basis of newspaper or what others told, that is, from the report of historians. By historians’ report I mean ‘Historians Report to Nation’.”

Satyawati College lecturer SC Mishra intoned,“Prithvi Raj Chauhan was king of Ghazni; he (Muhammad Ghori) was king of its adjoining area... I have heard of jaziya tax... At present I fail to recollect when and for what purpose it was levied. I do not remember that the jaziya was levied only on Hindus...”

Little wonder the court observed, “He accepts of being expert in Epigraphy but... neither he knows Arabic nor Persian nor Latin, therefore he had no occasion to understand the language in which the alleged inscription was written... The slipshod and casual manner in which he made inquiry about inscription is further interesting.”

The Ayodhya debate reveals a disturbing aspect of the personality of pre-eminent historian Irfan Habib [Aligarh Muslim University ] — he has not hesitated to cast serious aspersions on the integrity of academicians and institutions in disagreement with his views. This book challenges such lord chaplains of Indian history.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMENT :

Here is what Arun Shourie had written about Professor Irfan Habib, of the Aligarh Muslim University , a 'PADMA BHUSHAN' for good measure, from UPA-1 !! , in his book: "Indian Controversies" ,Rupa & Co (1993) - on the outright 'LYING' by these 'RED EMINENCES' in the Ayodhya debate :

QUOTE :

" - - - . So archaeology itself was denounced. And sophistry was put out.Irfan Habib led the charge. But his own 'howler' showed his arguments to be special pleading : If one went by the dates he ascribed on the basis of 'Carbon Dating' and all, Babur would have expired in 1965 instead of 1530, the reign of Akbar would commence in 2001, instead of having ended in 1605 !" (pp- 549)

When Germany is Christian, is India Hindu?

By Maria Wirth

May 11, 2013

(Denying One’s Own Roots)

Though I live in India since long, there are still some points that I find hard to understand - for example why many educated Indians become agitated when India is considered as a Hindu country. The majority of Indians are Hindus. India is special because of its ancient Hindu tradition. Westerners are drawn to India because of it. Why then is there this resistance by many Indians to acknowledge the Hindu roots of their country?

This attitude is strange for two reasons. First, those educated Indians seem to have a problem only with ‘Hindu’ India, but not with ‘Muslim’ or ‘Christian’ countries. In Germany for example, only 59 percent of the population are registered with the two big Christian Churches (Protestant and Catholic), however, the country is bracketed under ‘Christian countries’. Angela Merkel, the Chancellor, stressed recently the Christian roots of Germany and urged the population ‘to go back to Christian values’. In 2012, she postponed her trip to the G-8 summit for a day to address the German Catholic Day. Two major political parties carry ‘Christian’ in their name, including Angela Merkel’s ruling party.

Germans are not agitated that Germany is called a Christian country, though I actually would understand if they were. After all, the history of the Church is appalling. The so called success story of Christianity depended greatly on tyranny.  “Convert or die”, were the options given not only to the indigenous population in America some five hundred years ago. In Germany, too, 1200 years ago, the emperor Karl the Great ordered the death sentence for refusal of baptism in his newly conquered realms. It provoked his advisor Alkuin to comment: ‘One can force them to baptism, but how to force them to believe?’

Those times, when one’s life was in danger if one dissented with the dogmas of the Church, are thankfully over. And nowadays many in the west do dissent and leave the Church in a steady stream - partly because they are disgusted with the less than holy behavior of Church officials and partly because they can’t believe in the dogmas, for example that ‘Jesus is the only way’ and that God sends all those who don’t accept this to hell.

And here comes the second reason why the resistance to associate India with Hinduism by Indians is difficult to understand. Hinduism is in a different category from the Abrahamic religions. Its history, compared to Christianity and Islam was undoubtedly the least violent as it spread in ancient times by convincing arguments and not by force. It is not a belief system that demands blind belief in dogmas and the suspension of one’s intelligence. On the contrary, Hinduism encourages using one’s intelligence to the hilt. It is an enquiry into truth, based on a refined (methods are given) character and intellect. It comprises a huge body of ancient literature, not only regarding Dharma and philosophy, but also regarding music, architecture, dance, science, astronomy, economics, politics, etc.

If Germany or any other western country had this kind of literary treasure, it would be so proud and highlight its greatness on every occasion. When I discovered for example the Upanishads, I was stunned. Here was expressed in clear terms what I intuitively had felt to be true, but could not have expressed clearly. Brahman is not partial; it is the invisible, indivisible essence in everything. Everyone gets again and again a chance to discover the ultimate truth and is free to choose his way back to it. Helpful hints are given but not imposed.

 In my early days in India, I thought that every Indian knew and valued his tradition. Slowly I realized that I was wrong. The British colonial masters had been successful in not only weaning away many of the elite from their ancient tradition but even making them despise it. It helped that the ‘educated’ class could no longer read the original Sanskrit texts and believed what the British told them. This lack of knowledge and the brainwashing by the British education may be the reason why many ‘modern’ Indians are against anything ‘Hindu’. They don’t realize the difference between western religions that have to be believed (or at least professed) blindly, and which discourage if not forbid their adherents to think on their own and the multi-layered Hindu Dharma which gives freedom and encourages using one’s intelligence.

 

Many of the educated class do not realize that on one hand, westerners, especially those who dream to impose their own religion on this vast country, will applaud them for denigrating Hindu Dharma, because this helps western universalism to spread in India. On the other hand, many westerners, including Church people, very well know the value and surreptitiously appropriate insights from the vast Indian knowledge system, drop the original source and present it either as their own or make it look as if these insights had been known in the west.

Rajiv Malhotra of Infinity Foundation has done painstaking research in this field and has documented many cases of “digestion” of Dharma civilization into western universalism. He chose the term digestion, as it implies that that which is being digested (a deer for example) is in the end no longer there, whereas the ‘digester’ (a tiger) becomes stronger. Similarly, Hindu civilization is gradually being depleted of its valuable, exclusive assets and what is left is called inferior.

If only missionaries denigrated Hindu Dharma, it would not be so bad, as they clearly have an agenda which discerning Indians would detect. But sadly, Indians with Hindu names assist them because they wrongly believe that Hinduism is inferior to western religions. They belittle everything Hindu instead of getting thorough knowledge. As a rule, they know little about their tradition except what the British told them, i.e. that the major features are caste system and idol worship. They don’t realize that India would gain, not lose, if it solidly backed its profound and all inclusive Hindu tradition. The Dalai Lama said some time ago that already as a youth in Lhasa, he had been deeply impressed by the richness of Indian thought. “India has great potential to help the world,” he added.

When will the westernized Indian elite realize it?

Action, reaction

N.V. Subramanian 

7 June 2013

http://newsinsight.net/Action,reaction.aspx#page=page-1

[Narendra Modi’s enemies have made him into a star.]

If the Bharatiya Janata Party declares Narendra Modi as its prime minister candidate and loses the general election, it would be its problem. Why are other politicians and political parties so worried and so opposed to his nomination then? 

It is understandable that Lal Krishna Advani and Sushma Swaraj hate his guts, because the party hasn’t had a mass leader like him in a long while, and Atal Behari Vajpayee wasn’t a mass politician by any reckoning, great as a prime minister though he was. 

So what is the problem of the other parties vis-a-vis Modi? Why is the Congress party saying that he will polarize the voting to its advantage and then opposes him tooth and nail, setting the Central Bureau of Investigation in his pursuit to get any dirt, and manufacture some if necessary? Why? Why is the political class so united against Modi? 

Because the Gujarat chief minister represents transformative change that quivers them to their bones. His can-do attitude makes them appear as tired geezers and parasites that won’t vacate their offices as they suck the blood of the nation. 

The Congress of course is full of bloodsuckers but there are any number of them present in the other political parties. Sharad Pawar. Laloo Prasad Yadav. Mulayam Singh Yadav. Muthuvel Karunanidhi. That is only the first line. Count their sons and daughters and nephews and in-laws and brothers and sisters. The list is endless. 

Then there are the second-rung politicians and the power brokers who assure you of getting Muslim votes and OBC votes and Mahadalit votes and so on. Nitish Kumar tried the caste stunt in the Maharajganj bi-election and came a cropper. He played the development card too and it didn’t work, development having plateaued in Bihar. Nitish, the Yadav chieftains, etc, represent the older generation of contractor politicians. It’s status quo for them. They have spent their lives in the caste and communal construct of 

Indian politics which means nothing to a majority of young voters today who root for Modi. Modi, therefore, represents a political tidal wave which will wash them away. The fear of Modi thus animates Advani and Sushma Swaraj and Sonia Gandhi and Sharad Pawar and the rest of the gang. 

But how can you prevent an idea whose time has come? 

It is natural psychology to oppose what you fear. But it is opposition which has made Narendra Modi into a colossus.

This writer is often asked, “What is it that Modi has that the other successful BJP chief ministers do not have, say, someone like Shivraj Chauhan?” The short answer is national image. How did a chief minister of a non-“cowbelt” state like Gujarat get that “national image”? By virtue of being opposed nationally. 

It is because the political class led by the Congress, the mainstream media comprising newspapers and television channels, and so-called public intellectuals, began opposing Modi on an epic scale that the man grew to epic proportions. In exceptional circumstances, voters love the underdog. 

From the time of Indira Gandhi, Indian politics has proved instructive not to oppose anyone on false premises, because the voters will rally to the side of the victim. The Syndicate outmanoeuvred Mrs Gandhi but she broke out and went to the people. The voters backed her. The first Janata government at the Centre made the blunder of focusing on sending Mrs Gandhi to jail than on giving good governance. When the voters got their chance, they forgot the Emergency and brought Mrs Gandhi back to power. 

Something similar happened to Rajiv Gandhi when he was on a comeback trail after the terrible failure of his mortal enemy, Vishwanath Pratap Singh (Chandrasekhar was an aberration like Charan Singh after Morarji Desai; see how history repeats as farce), although fate had something else in store. Demonizing on a bigger scale happened to Narendra Modi, and it catapulted him to the national stage. 

As a national-level politician, Narendra Modi speaks a unique language. He speaks the vocabulary of action and doing. His energy is extraordinary. He is here, there, everywhere, like a chief executive on the go. His plans for India are audacious and astonishing. 

On another level, the corrupt politicians and bureaucrats are terrified because he gives no quarter to thieves and brigands. The few honest officers, however, want him to clean up the system. Oddly, there are Congressmen who desire that he takes over for the same reason. Modi incidentally represents the Bharatiya Janata Party. At the end of the day, he is his own man. 

There’s a story worth repeating here. Part of the anger of central BJP leaders with respect to Modi is that there are no easy monies for them to make from Gujarat as they succeeded from Karnataka under B.S.Yeddyruppa. When they asked Modi for contributions, legitimate and otherwise, he is reported to have said, “I make no money for myself nor is the party rolling in funds in the state to make handsome transfers to you. If you do not believe me, please check for yourself.” Needless to say, no one did. 

Like it or not, this is Modi. He is a deep man. He is fully committed to India, more than any other Indian mainstream politician. After Modi, there is no dynasty. If he becomes prime minister, India will be transformed beyond recognition, and politicians, big and small, will be ejected from their business of looting and dividing the country. This is why they oppose him, and the bigger the opposition, the mightier he grows. 

N.V.Subramanian is Editor, www.newsinsight.net and writes on politics and strategic affairs. He has authored two novels, University of Love (Writers Workshop, Calcutta) and Courtesan of Storms (Har-Anand, Delhi). 

Email: envysub@gmail.com

Let’s all be Hindu Fundamentalists

Maria Wirth

June 6, 2013
http://mariawirthblog.wordpress.com/2013/06/06/lets-all-be-hindu-fundamentalists/

Religious fundamentalists are on the rise and that is bad for our societies. Most people will agree on this. Yet few examine who religious fundamentalists are. 

Obviously, such persons would want to stick to the fundamentals of their religion. They want to live a life that is advocated in their holy books and would please their God. 

Now, since religious fundamentalists pose a problem, does it mean that the fundamentals of religions are bad for our societies? 

Let’s look at the three biggest religions:

Concerning Christianity, fundamentalists believe that God has revealed himself in the Bible and sent his only begotten son to earth to save all mankind. They believe in the first commandment: ‘You shall have no other gods before me’. Therefore, all humanity has to believe in the God of the Bible and his only son, Jesus Christ. Those who do not do so, will end up in hell. “Go out into the world”, is a central tenet of the Christian faith and fundamentalists consider it as their duty to convert as many ‘heathens’ as possible to Christianity by whatever means.

Concerning Islam, fundamentalists believe that Islam is the only true religion and Allah the only true God who wants the whole world to submit to Him. Those who do not become Muslims will go to hell. It is a central tenet and keeps recurring in the Quran. Fundamentalists see it as their duty to make all of humanity accept Islam and often take literally commandments in the Quran like “Strike terror in the hearts of unbelievers.”

Concerning Hinduism, fundamentalists believe that Brahman (other names are allowed and in use) is the one true God. However, Brahman is not a personal God who saves those who believe in Him and damns all others. Rather, Brahman is the most subtle conscious essence that permeates everything and everyone, never mind, which religion he follows or whether he is an atheist. “Atman is Brahman” or “one’s own Self is God”, the Vedas proclaim.

Now, all religions claim that there is only one Highest, one ‘true God’ in English or one ‘Allah’ in Arabic or one ‘Brahman’ in Sanskrit. And of course there is only one Highest/ God – the almighty, all knowing presence that is responsible for the existence of the universe. How can it be otherwise? 

Hindus, however, often don’t understand that Christians as well as Muslims are really convinced that their one true God, respectively Allah, saves only the brothers and sisters of their own faith and sends all others as heathen or infidels into hell. 

This conviction is indeed difficult to understand for humans with a normal reasoning capacity. Yet if one grows up hearing repeatedly that only one’s own faith is true and other people are bad because they don’t accept this, it may actually make sense. It happened to me as a child – it made sense that only we Christians go to heaven, because we have been chosen by God…

So we have a situation in the world where Christianity and Islam, each one over a billion strong, rival with each other: “Our God alone is true! If you don’t believe it, you go to hell.” And the other group counters, “No. Our God alone is true! And if you don’t believe it you go to hell.”

One could laugh it off if it were not so serious. 

Fundamentalists stick to this belief – and unfortunately, the official clergy of both religions uphold it, as well. It is naturally a cause for great friction in the world.

Hinduism (or Sanatana Dharma, as it used to be called) does not take part in this one-upmanship. It is ancient. It was there long before Christianity or Islam appeared on the scene. 

In Hinduism, Brahman is not a male entity who watches over us from somewhere. It is inside everyone, conscious, living and loving. It will always give another chance until everyone realises his true being and merges in Brahman, which may take many lives. 

The Hindu scriptures proclaim, “Humanity is one family”. “Brahman permeates the smallest as well as the biggest.” “Thou art That.” “Brahman is not what your mind thinks but That by which the mind is capable to think.” “See God in everyone.”  “Respect nature.”

And they lead us in prayer: “May we be protected together, may we be nourished together, may we work together with great vigour, may our study be enlightening, may no obstacle arise between us.” “Let noble thoughts come to us from all sides.” “May everyone be happy”, and so on.

Many Hindus, too, don’t know these fundamentals of their religion and believe it is all about rituals, worshipping their favourite aspect of God to get their wishes fulfilled and celebrating festivals. They don’t realise that Hinduism is the only religion that is all inclusive. It does not set one group of people against all the others. It is also not opposed to science and does not only allow using one’s intelligence but encourages to do so.

Maybe that is the reason why in the west, Hinduism is sometimes even missing when the world religions are listed, as for westerners, a religion is apparently not a religion if it is not based on unverifiable dogmas, especially the one that sets it apart from other religions and which is so harmful for a harmonious living together of all humanity. Is it not about time for us in the 21th century to scrap such unverifiable, harmful fundamentals that set up one group of people against another group?

The best option is to follow the Hindu fundamentals. 

So let’s be Hindu fundamentalists who see God in everyone, also in animals and in nature. Our world would benefit.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RELATED PLEASE :

My Opinion about Hinduism, Islam and Christianity

By Simona Rich

October 29, 2011 

(Image obtained from able2know.org)
'In this post I express my opinion about three main religions, which are Hinduism, Islam and Christianity. I don’t intend with this post to change your opinion about any of these religions, however I hope that this post will help those who are confused about these religions. Hopefully my post will inspire and empower those lost in religions to think more outside the box and find God in their own unique way.'

PLEASE READ THE FULL REPORT AT :

URL : http://www.personal-development-coach.net/hinduism-islam-christianity.html

Communities as open-air business schools

S. GURUMURTHY

 

Using the community model, Tirupur, in Tamil Nadu, became the world leader in knitted garments by the 1990s. — M. Balaji

The Kathiawaris, Nadars and Gounders have disseminated business skills like no modern business school could have done.

www.thehindubusinessline.com/opinion/communities-as-openair-business-schools/article4766385.ece

 

On February 19 this year, the BBC had reported that armed robbers posing as police broke into the cargo of a Swiss-bound plane in Brussels airport and spirited away diamonds worth $50 million (Rs 250 crore). This must have left Surat, the world’s largest diamond handling centre, which sees some Rs 80,000 crore of diamonds criss-crossing the region in open roads, quite amused. Here, couriers on motor cycles carry unpolished diamonds worth Rs 50-60 crore day after day from traders at Surat to the polishing units tens of kilometres away. Polished diamonds are brought back to traders on motorcycles on open roads without any gun-wielding security person guarding these diamond couriers.

GUJARAT’S COMMUNITIES

This is possible because the Surat diamond trading system is entirely based on trust among and within caste-based communities. Entry into the diamond business, whether as traders, polishers, or handlers, is regulated and overseen by a system of community reference and verification. No one without verification can enter the network.

An instructive research paper (Yale University, November 2006) on the transition of the farming community of Kathiawaris, titled From Farming to International Business: The Social Auspices of New Entrepreneurship in a Growing Economy, traces how the Kabin Patels (Kathiawaris) entered trade late but formed a new community-based business network. They moved over from agriculture to international business – the diamond industry dominated by the Vaishyas, Palanpuri Jains and Parsis – over just a single generation. In three decades, they have achieved parity in scale with the Palanpuris and Marwaris. The paper says that the successful entry of Kathiawaris in the diamond business points to the fact that in businesses where connections are critical, non-Vaishyas have also had occupational mobility where opportunities opened up. Thus, contrary to Max Weber’s view, caste has actually made occupational mobility possible. This is because caste familiarity generates trust, and the caste itself turns into an open-air business school of self-learning for entrepreneurs, teaching them to build businesses. But are diamond trade and Kathiawaris exceptions? Just anecdotes? No.

TIRUPUR STORY

Take the Gounder community in western Tamil Nadu, the equivalent of the Kathiawaris. This is what the World Bank’s World Development Report 2001 says about how the community that has built a global knitwear business.

“By 1990s...Tirupur was a world leader in the knitted garments industry. The success of this industry is striking…What is behind the story of this development? The needed capital was raised within the Gounder community, a caste relegated to land-based activities, relying on community and family networks…These networks were viewed as more reliable in transmitting information and enforcing contracts than banking and legal systems that offered weak protection to creditors’ rights.” The community network which promoted entrepreneurship based on self-learning also trained new entrants the knitwear business and customer management. Very much an open-air business school, isn’t it?

Both the Kathiawaris and Gounders were land-owners. But even the landless have become entrepreneurs. Turn to the Sankagiri transport cluster in western Tamil Nadu, the second largest centre for lorry traffic in the country. Some 90 per cent of the Sankagiri truck owners were agriculturists and a fifth were cattle grazers. They now own the largest population of Taurus vehicles in the country. Seven out of 10 Sankagiris are now involved in transport-related activities, according to Indian Models of Economy, Business and Management by Prof P Kanagasabapathi.

Tiruchengode is the next stop. In the 1960s, a severe water crisis forced Tiruchengode’s farmers to jointly buy a rig to dig deep bore-wells. But seeing the demand for such wells, they successfully turned this into a business that soon spread over to Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Odisha.

Today Tiruchengode boasts of the largest providers of bore-wells in the country, according to Prof Kanagasabapathi. The open-air learning process led to training and initiating others into the business, in a way no modern business school could have done.

OLD TREND

Studies on the Chettiars show how the community was able to internationalise based on their networks and a culture of training sons for the business, embracing best practices, and replicating domestic social structures overseas. Research about the Nadar community’s economic and business models reveal how the NadarUravinmurai’ (relation-based network) evolved as an endogenous and innovative trade-linked caste organisation. Uravinmurai was set up for safe movement of the community’s goods and later became an instrument for self-discipline and collective learning. There are some 1,000 Uravinmurai in Tamil Nadu. Again, aren’t these cases of open-air business schools spreading knowledge of trade and business?

These are just illustrations, not exhaustive of the phenomenon all over the country, particularly in over 2,800 artisan and industrial clusters. Apart from the traditional Banias, the Marwaris, and the Sindhis, there is also the rise of the Ramgadias of Punjab, the Jatavs of Agra and Kanpur, and the Kammas of Andhra. Harish Damodaran, in his book India’s New Capitalists: Caste, Business and Industry in a Modern Nation,calls this the‘Field to Factory’ movement, signifying the expansion of the social base of Indian business ‘beyond the Bania’. The 2005 Economic Census indicates that the rise of backward classes in businesses is now becoming a massive entrepreneurial movement in which the state has had no role.

But this cannot be as recent as it appears. It has to be in the still unexplored periods of Indian history. Studies of Paul Bairoch (1983) and Angus Maddison (2001-2010) have indeed found evidence of extensive economic activity in India, which could not have been confined to just one Vaishya caste. According to the American Journal of Economics and Sociology (April 1993), the Mauryan model of export-led economic growth had secured a huge export surplus for India. The economic history of the Greco-Roman world tells us that India ran a continuous trade surplus with Egypt that worried Roman rulers, the annual value of which in today's gold prices would be $178 million.

Marco Polo’s travelogue says that the gold-silver arbitrage ratio was 1:6 in India which was the other way round in Europe, indicating the huge trade surplus India must have achieved over centuries. The Bank of International Settlements Report (1934-35) says that during the period 1493 to 1930 (for 427 years), India’s gold absorption rate was 14 per cent of the world’s production, which means that much was perhaps the share of India’s trade surplus as against the rest of the world. Again, Marco Polo says that the size of India’s merchant ships was larger than its contemporaries. India’s merchant navy had 40,000 ships during Akbar’s time and 34,000 with a capacity of more than a million tonnes when the British came to India. When the British left, India’s merchant navy’s strength had dwarfed to couple of lakh tonnes.

A study by the Centre for West Asia Studies at the Jamia Millia Islamia University affirms that, in Akbar’s time, consumption in India was higher than in Europe. According to colonial records studied by Dharampal, a well-known Gandhian, the consumption pattern of the high-, middle- and low-income groups in Cudappah and Bellary in the 17th century showed virtually no difference in 23 of the 24 items accounted for.

Economic history

India could never have been an agrarian economy then as it is now, given India’s share in world manufacturing at 24.5 per cent in 1750 and with industrial employment then estimated at between 21 and 28 per cent. It was the collapse of Indian industry during the colonial period that drove people back to the farms. This kind of widespread and widely shared economic activity would not have been confined to the minuscule Bania community.

There is need to recall, re-author, and review Indian economic history, which is even now a prisoner of the Marx-Weber perspectives.

This need is no more academic. After the global economic meltdown in 2008, when efficient market theories and model building approaches were heavily questioned, Bradford Delong, Professor of Economics at University of California, Berkeley, wrote that it was not an economic crisis but ‘economics in crisis’. He called upon schools of economics to generate fewer efficient market theorists and modellers and more economic historians.

Subsequently, Howard Davies, who was the first chairman of the United Kingdom’s Financial Services Authority (1997-2003) and formerly Director of the London School of Economics, cited the view of the Institute of New Economic Thinking (that consists of eminent economists, financial minds and businessmen), insisting on teaching more economic history. This is equally a call for India to trace its business propensities back in time.

(The author is a commentator on political and economic affairs, and a corporate advisor)