How Leftist historiography erased the vanquished in India’s history
The adage is that when the winner in a battle is left to write history, he will destroy, demolish, and discredit the loser in all respects. This has been substantiated by the “Left” historians in the country who penned the history of ancient, medieval, and modern India. Irfan Habib, a historian pursuing Islamic fundamentalist ideology, went to the extent of claiming that there never existed a river by the name Saraswati and described it as a mythological river.
Habib wrote in a newspaper published from Chennai and toeing the CPI(M) and Chinese policies that Saraswati was a figment of imagination, and he quoted some foreign novelists and students to substantiate his claim. But when it was pointed out to the “eminent historian” that the scientists of the Department of Space and Atomic Energy, Government of India, have scientifically proved the existence of the River Saraswati and traced its course of flow, Habib became silent. That much for the eminent historian!
The gullible students who are passionate about history swallow what Habib sermonizes because the Communist parties and Islamic fundamentalists have given him the aura of an “eminent historian”. The innocent students are ignorant about the evil designs of the likes of Habib and his comrades. His character was exposed during the inaugural function of the annual meeting of the Indian History Congress (IHC), a Marxist-controlled body, held at Kannur in 2020, when he tried to shut down Mohammed Arif Khan, the then Governor of Kerala. The Governor later told reporters that it was a very unfortunate incident as the man at the other end turned out to be Irfan Habib, a scholar of repute. Not contending with insulting the Governor, Habib tried to physically assault his ADC, who was single-handedly protecting the Governor from any possible attack.
Our Universities do not recognise the 11-volume magnum opus “The History and Culture of the Indian People”, edited by Prof R C Majumdar and published by Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan under the auspices of Kulapati K M Munshi and industrialist G D Birla. The series is considered a benchmark in writing history across the world as Prof Majumdar has assimilated the time and space in these volumes. But the Left-dominated Indian academia still pursues a policy that describes Ramayana and Mahabharata as myths.
Even the recent history chronicled by historians and journalists portrays India as a cauldron to suit their ideology and religion. There are rare exceptions like Durga Das, M V Kamath, but they are labelled as Sanghis or Hindutva elements! I was in for a shock when B L Bhyrappa, the Kannada/ Marathi author, was labelled as Sanghi by these eminent historians for bringing out the life of the real Aurangzeb, the Mughal despot who destroyed thousands of Hindu temples across his empire and forcefully converted tens of thousands of Hindus into Islam.
When politicians and journalists write their memoirs or autobiographies (I do not think there are politicians and media persons qualified enough to write their life sketches as of date, barring the likes of Arun Shourie, Nalini Singh, and S Gurumurthy, who are capable of calling a spade a spade), they should show at least some basic honesty. What these journalists write would be read by future generations, and if some persons with access to the truth point out the fallacies in their works, the reputation of the authors would come crashing down. If you do not want to tell the truth, stay away from it. It is dangerous to disseminate wrong information about persons, incidents, and the drama enacted on the national centre stage.
In journalism schools, the budding journalists are told by their teachers that what they write as reports is the first draft of history. Remember, when B G Varghese, journalist and editor of the Indian Express, wrote his memoirs, he titled it The First Draft. Most of his columns were against the Sanatan Dharma, as he himself was a devout Christian. But that does not diminish his role as a journalist.
These things came to mind while reading I, WITNESS, the memoirs of Shahid Siddiqui, journalist-turned-Congressman-turned-SP-turned-BSP-turned-RLD-turned-SP-turned-journalist. There are only a few major political outfits that have not been blessed by Shahid Bhai, and I wish he could have enlightened the leadership of these parties, too, with his wisdom and intelligence.
The cover photograph features the pictures of Jawaharlal Nehru, Indira Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi, the signora of 10, Janpath, V P Singh, P V Narasimha Rao, Manmohan Singh, Rahul Gandhi, Mayawati, Mulayam Singh Yadav, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, and Narendra Modi, which gives the impression that the author has interviewed all these VIPS. The pictures of Chandrasekhar, Lal Bahadur Shastri, IK Gujral, and Deve Gowda are conspicuous by their absence, or the author might have felt that they do not deserve to be on the cover.
Shahid Bhai’s masterstroke in this book is his effort to market Priyanka Gandhi Vadra as the next Indira Gandhi. His description of this young lady has come at the right time, as Congressmen themselves have started demanding the removal of the outrageous Rahul Gandhi from party positions and bringing in either Priyanka or her son Raihan to the centre stage of Congress politics.
The author has given a vivid account of the events that led to Operation Bluestar and the subsequent assassination of the then-Premier Indira Gandhi by her own security guards. Shahid blames Arun Nehru for the deterioration of the situation in Punjab and the Khalistani politics led by Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale. Two other books on this issue, which I happened to read, are TURMOIL IN PUNJAB by Ramesh Inder Singh and the KHALISTAN CONSPIRACY by GBS Sidhu. Ramesh Inder Singh belonged to the IAS and had served as district magistrate of Amritsar (1984 to 1987). He knew Punjab politics and politicians like the back of his hand. But RJ, as he is addressed, has not written anything about the role played by Arun Nehru in the episode. “I do not have any specific information on Arun Nehru’s role. However, some knowledgeable sources do point towards the role played by a group around Mrs Gandhi in the decision to carry out Operation Bluestar, and that includes the name of Mr Nehru. But this needs authentication,” said Mr Singh when asked about Nehru’s role in the incident.
Sidhu, who served as special secretary, RAW during the period, too, has not given any significance to Arun Nehru. Arun was a close relative of the Gandhis, and he shot into prominence during the tenure of Rajiv Gandhi as PM. But he fell out with the household once he tightened the rules for visitors to Rajiv Gandhi’s house. This was told by Arun to this writer during a brief tete-a-tete at Kochi sometime in 1990. Someone in Rajiv Gandhi’s house did not like the domineering attitude as minister for internal security, and that led to his ouster from the inner circle as well as the Congress.
What shocks an average reader is Shahid Bhai’s description of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel as a rightist. Sardar is known as the Lenin of Bordoli, following the success of the Satyagraha he led for the farmers of Gujarat, and also the exemplary leadership he gave in rebuilding the villages devastated by the 1927 Gujarat Flood. Nothing surprising in the preconceived notion Shahid Bhai has towards the Hindus. I remember seeing him on TV news channels ridiculing, humiliating, and disgracing the Sanatanis with his sheer lung power.
The downfall of Rajiv Gandhi, who had won the 1985 Lok Sabha polls with an unprecedented majority, is not because of his opening the locks of Ram Janmabhoomi Mandir at Ayodhya. Scams like Bofors, HDW submarine deal, purchase of Airbus aircraft for the national carrier, which occurred during his tenure as prime minister, hastened his downfall. The Congress won 414 seats (49.1 percent of total votes polled), had to contend with 197 seats (39.53 percent) in the 1989 election, and 244 seats (36.26 percent) in the 1991 polls despite the martyrdom of Rajiv Gandhi. One has lost the number of times Rajiv Gandhi reshuffled his cabinet and removed chief ministers of Congress-ruled States during his tenure. Since the day he was sworn in as Prime Minister for the first time after the assassination of Indira Gandhi, the nation saw Rajiv Gandhi becoming more and more arrogant. We have not forgotten how he tried in vain to tame the media through black laws like the Defamation Bill, intended to curb writing against the powers that be.
The Indian intelligentsia has this inherent “quality” of labelling those who tell or write the truth as Sanghis. The trend, which is distinct since the demolition of the disputed structure at Ram Janmabhoomi Mandir in 1992, is to “ostracize” those who tell the truth and call them names. Intolerance is our trademark as we have seen during the manufactured agitations against the Uniform Civil Code, Triple Talaq, CAA, and the Farm Bills. A journalist should have no religion. The media is his lifeline, and he has to give the readers /viewers the facts and not manufactured facts.
In an era when information strikes at us like an avalanche, any attempt to subvert or distort the news turns out to be counterproductive. Shahid Siddiqui’s “I, WITNESS” loses its credibility and turns out to be an “ISLAMIC WITNESS” because of his overenthusiasm in projecting leaders belonging to one particular community as angels while suppressing others as sinners.
There is a term THALLAL in Malayalam. It means self-promotion or self-boasting. Shahid Bhai’s I, WITNESS is an ideal example of THALLAL. If you have not read it, you have not lost anything.
Note:
1. Text in Blue points to additional data on the topic.
2. The views expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of PGurus.
For all the latest updates, download PGurus App.
- Book Review: I, Witness by Shahid Siddiqui - November 18, 2025
- Jawaharlal Nehru’s legacy falters as Congress loses on his birthday - November 16, 2025
- Electorate hands over Bihar to NDA; It is for Modi and Nitish to take action - November 14, 2025
