Provocative defence and unwarranted criticism

By Prof. Hari Om

A few Left-oriented historians are expressing their unhappi-ness with the Congress- dominated Delhi Assembly. They are also carrying on a no-holds-barred propaganda blitz against the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) for quite some time now.

Their grouse against the Delhi Assembly is that it has adopted a resolution asking the NCERT to delete forthwith everything from Professor Satish Chandra’s book titled Medieval India which has outraged the religious and nationalist sensitivities of the Sikh community. In effect, the upshot of their whole formulation against the Delhi Assembly is that it has "allowed the initiative to pass on to the BJP'’, which, they believe, is out to use its influence over such educational organizations as the NCERT with a view to getting the Indian history "saffronised"and "communalized". And, their charge against the NCERT is that it has lost its independent and professional character and allowed itself to be controlled and guided by the present BJP - led dispensation at the Centre.

Are these charges based on hard realities and facts? Even a cursory look at the available facts would reveal that they are not. On the contrary, it would present a picture that at places dismisses them as somewhat unreasonable, insensitive, biased and unaccommodating.

Take, for instance, the Leftist historians’ October 8, 2001 assertion made from the SAHMAT platform regarding the Delhi Assembly suggestion and that portion of Professor Satish Chandra’s book which deals with Guru Teg Bahadur. Their assertion was nothing but a reiteration of the stand taken by Professor Chandra that Guru Teg Bahadur did "resort to plunder and rapine, laying waste the whole province of the Punjab" and that this conclusion, which has caused a furor among the Sikhs, had been drawn on the basis of information as contained in "some later Persian sources". But this was not all. The SAHMAT historians exhibited their total disregard to the religious sentiments of the Sikh community when they opined loudly and unambiguously that Professor Chandra’s book contains nothing whatsoever which in any way downgrades their revered Guru and that whatever the author of Medieval India penned down over a decade ago should he taken as something infallible.

These historians consistently say that history must be based on sources which are, contemporary, authentic and scientific. They also dole out sermons day in and day out that one must be very careful while examining and cross-examining and checking and re-checking references so as to reach logical conclusions. But these are the sermons meant for others. They follow a different set of yardstick. For, they alone have the liberty to select or reject any kind of sources in order to construct and reconstruct history, propagate and promote their narrow ideology which has all the potentials of sharpening caste and communal angularities and suppress or underrate certain inconvenient facts. Again, they and they alone have the privilege to use sources containing what they call "official explanations".

To question them or to write a history as it was would be to invite their and their supporters’ ire and such invectives and epithets as "fascist", "communalist", "chauvinist" and what not. How else would one interpret their great defence for Professor Satish Chandra’s version on Guru Teg Bahadur based on the "official explanation... as given in some later Persian sources" as well as their bitter criticism of those demanding deletion of that portion regarded by them as a grave distortion, derogatory and insulting.

But this was not unexpected. After alt they have been distorting certain facts and forcing down the nation’s throat umpteen imaginary ever since independence. And, their principal objective in doing so , it appears, has been to ensure polarisation of the Indian society on caste, ethnic and communal lines so that the country’s socio-religious and political equilibrium is disturbed and none in the country takes pride in his glorious past. It is, however, a different story that the Indians , barring a handful of disgruntled elements and vested interests here and there, have refused to walk into their trap as they are intelligent enough to understand the dangerous ramifications of the Left-oriented historians’ game-plan. Instead, they have all along endeavoured to protect and promote the country’s unity, integrity and sovereignty. Professor Romila Thapar’s and Professor R.S. Sharma’s version on the origin of the Aryans, the Vedic Age, beef eating and the genesis of the Ramayana and Mahabharta; Professor Satish Chandra’s treatment to the otherwise spectacular contributions made by the Marathas, the Sikhs and the Rajput Chiefs like Maharana Pratap to the process of nation - building; and Professor R.S. Sharma’s writings on lord Mahavira all point to their contempt for the hard historical facts. But more than that, all their writings indicate their disrespect for everything Indian, the great epics like the Ramayana and the Mahabharta and the great religious and spiritual personalities included, and all praise for those whose rule was not really glorious by any standard as it nakedly discriminated against the majority community in all spheres and at all levels for centuries together.

These constitute just a few of the several such examples which only serve to demonstrate their bias, unreasonableness, arrogance and intolerance. One can also catalogue several reasons to establish that the sole intention of these Leftist historians is not only to spread misinformation in order to sharpen caste, ethnic, cultural civilizational and religious differences and create in the minds of the Indians a suspicion about their own origin, identity and personality, but also to monopolize history and create an environment that rigorously prevents others from entering this crucial, sensitive and nation - building arena and presenting a true and accurate picture of facts.

If the role and activities of the SAHMAT historians in the ongoing controversy over the disrespect shown to Guru Teg Bahadur, who sacrificed his life for the cause of the country and the oppressed Kashmiri Pandits, are provocative, their criticism against the country’s objective and premier educational institution NCERT is no less irrational and unwarranted. After all, what wrong has the NCERT committed? The NCERT’s only fault is that it is religiously following in full the 1986 National Policy on Education (NPE) as well as the directions as given in the 1992 Programme of Action (PA).

It is, however, true that the NCERT has reviewed the 1988 National Curriculum for Elementary and Secondary Education : A Framework and come out with the new National Curriculum Framework for School Education (NCFFSE) after detailed discussions with the country’s leading educationists and several State controlled educational agencies. But it is also equally true that the NCERT has done so in view of the 1986 direction as contained in the NPE which makes it virtually mandatory to review the whole educational policy "every five years... keeping in view... issues of major concern, advance in knowledge and Pedagogical considerations".

As for the history, which will form part of the social studies from the academic session 2002-2003 up to the secondary stage, the NCERT has at no stage proposed to distort history or give precedence to "sentiments" over facts. Nor would it ever do so and toe any line which is inconsistent with the NPA philosophy and goals. For, the NCERT is an ardent believe in the concept that facts are sacrosanct and the historians have the right to interpret them the way they like plus the rider that none can and should tamper with the facts. The NCERT would under no situation can afford to violate this principle as it is accountable to the ever watchful nation.

The Leftist historians would do well to modify or reform their approach to history. The best thing for them would be to develop a spirit that also values die other’s view point. Not to do so and continue to cling to the ill-designed ideas and conclusions and rake up controversies over nothing would be to undermine the importance of history and create more rancour and animosity between segments of the Indian society. And, this the fast-developing Indian nation just cannot afford.ªrLŠ€f¨ºê¬ú 1z 

Nuclear terrorism and bin Laden factor

By Kalpana Chittaranjan

The teamwork, planning, organization and commitment that went into the September 11 terror attacks on two landmark buildings, one lifeline of U.S. economy and other the hub of its defence establishment, have convinced many that terrorists who have so far not used unconventional weapons or weapons of mass destruction (WMD), would do so without hesitation if they possessed such weapons in their arsenal.

Recent events such as reports of US and Israeli commandos training together to seize Pakistani nuclear weapons at the possibility of President Pervez Musharraf’s ouster by jehadi or Taliban-loyal forces, the detention and release of one of the two Pakistani, retired nuclear scientists after he was questioned for suspicion of transferring nuclear technology to bin laden, a second US governmental cautionary note to its citizens warning them of fresh terrorist attacks from within or outside their country, the ongoing anthrax bioterrorism and the revelation that the suspected ringleader of the September 11 attacks, Mohammad Atta, had met with a senior member of the Iraqi intelligence service in Prague, the Czech Republic capital , in spring this year, have contributed to heightened unease.

Bin Laden’s belief that possessing and using WMD is legitimate adds to the growing fear. In an interview to Time magazine in 1998, he had said, "We don’t consider it a crime if we try to have nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. If I have indeed acquired these weapons, then I thank God for enabling me to do so." The same year saw him issuing a statement called "The Nuclear Bomb of Islam," in which he said, "It is the duty of Muslims to prepare as much force as possible to terrorise the enemies of God." Given this, the question is not whether bin Laden would use nuclear weapons but whether he has such weapons in his stockpile and if so, of what size, dimensions and mass-killing capability.

Given below are accounts of some instances in which bin Laden and his At-Qaeda organisation are alleged to have sought to possess nuclear materials or weapons by trying to buy, steal or smuggle nuclear systems. In 1993, a senior bin Laden operative, Jamal- al-Fadi, testified during a terrorism trial in New York this year that he was ordered to buy uranium from Allah Abdel Moburuk, a former Sudanese military officer for $1.5 million. Moburuk’s associate showed Fadi a bag containing a two-three foot cylinder purportedly containing uranium, with documents that stated the material came from South Africa. Fadl said he was not aware if the sale went through.

Bin Laden’s emissaries are said to have made several trips to Europe in attempts to bring back enriched uranium. Five nuclear scientists from Turkmenistan had been recruited by Laden early on; he has reportedly made attempts to obtain ready nuclear warheads from Russia, Kazakhstan, Ukraine and Turkmenistan, for dismantling and using them to build small tactical ‘suitcase’ bombs.

In the article entitled "Bin Laden Has Several Nuclear Suitcases" published on October 25th 1999 in Jerusalem Report, Yossef Bodansky, a freelance analyst, who was then head Of the Congressional Task Force on Non-Conventional Terrorism in Washington stated: "There is no longer much doubt that bin Laden has finally succeeded in his quest for nuclear ‘Suitcase’ bombs". Bodansky asserted that bin Laden’s associates had acquired the bomb through Chechenya by paying the Chechens $30 million in cash along with two tonnes of Afghan heroin with an estimated street value of $700 million in Western cities. Earlier, in September 1997, the CBS broadcast a story from former Russian National Security Advisor, Alexander Lebed, which claimed the Russian military could not account for more than 100 suitcase-sized nuclear bombs, out of the 250 that had been developed by the KGB in the 1970s. In his 1998 testimony to the US House of Representatives, Lebed brought this number of missing ‘suitcase’ bombs down to 43. This suitcase bomb can be detonated by one person and inflict a damage of about 100, 000 casualties.

In September 1998, Israeli intelligence sources told Time magazine that bin Laden had paid $2 million in British pounds to a man in Kazakhstan for promising to deliver a suitcase bomb within two years. Playing off these original news items, there has been a spate of unconfirmed, exaggerated and alarming news reports ever since, which remain unconfirmed.

In recent weeks, while police in Canada, Britain and Bulgaria have been urgently investigating suspicious activity involving atomic energy research facilities amidst growing fears that Osama bin Laden could be attempting to build crude nuclear weapons, intelligence sources say he has already acquired nuclear material. A US defence official is quoted as saying, "if there’s any nuclear capability, it is liable to be more radiological than fissile."

While a fissile nuclear device produces a nuclear blast, radiological weapons, also known as ‘dirty bombs’, combine radioactive material with conventional explosives to increase their deadliness. An attack caused by such a weapon would not cause mass casualties, but would involve great costs in decontaminating the area surrounding the explosion. Radiological bombs would be relatively easier to obtain and would not be as well guarded as nuclear weapons.

A major cause of worry is Pakistan’s nuclear weapons. The Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) had assessed that by the end of 1999, Pakistan possessed 585, 800 kilograms of weapon-grade highly enriched uranium (HEU) and 1.7 to 13 kilograms of separated plutonium, which would be enough for making 30-50 nuclear bombs or warheads. Different media reports have suggested that Pakistan’s nuclear weapons are stored with their fissile cores separated from the non-nuclear components. However, in the current situation, the troubling aspect is that these nuclear weapons or fissile materials could fall into the hands of sympathizers of bin Laden, AI -Qaeda or the Taliban.

While analysts had concluded in the past that terrorists would not resort to nuclear terrorism as such an attack would lead to massive international condemnation and retaliation, a new breed of terrorists, symbolized by Osama bin Laden and his organisation, AI-Qaeda, who are motivated by religious rather than political objectives, would not hesitate in inflicting a large number of casualties and would be more likely to use nuclear weapons, given the chance. -CNF