This lecture was delivered at the 'What is History' regional conference held in Bulandshahr in October 2024.

I would like to begin with one question––is there anybody amongst the students here who has difficulty understanding English? This question is deeply connected to democracy. If there is even a single person in this amphitheatre who only understands Hindustani, I would much rather speak in Hindustani to get across to them. I am assuming that all others understand or at least have a working knowledge of spoken Hindustani, so if there is even one student who has difficulty in understanding English I'll switch to Hindustani. This is my understanding of democracy in communications––one must  try to get through to everyone and avoid using a language that excludes anyone. Since everyone seems to understand English I'll carry on in English.

We all grew up being told that the rule of the majority is democracy. It is not. When Hitler came to power, he had majority support. He wasn't running a democratic state at that time. A majority of our people practise caste discrimination. It is not democratic. A majority of our people want to keep women within limits decided by men. A majority of our people have no problem in accepting dowry. All these things are deeply anti-democratic. What the majority practices or believes to be true is not necessarily a measure of democracy. In fact, in history, it is the minority that brings change. This may sound like an exaggeration, let me give you a couple of examples to illustrate this.

The majority always supports the status quo. There was a time when the entire world believed that the earth was the centre of the universe––that the sun and moon and the stars rotate around the earth. And then it was Aristarchus––born almost 2,300 years ago––who first propounded the theory that it was not the earth but the sun that was the centre of the universe. Much later Nicholas Copernicus in the sixteenth century presented a mathematical model of a Heliocentric universe as opposed to the geocentric model. And later still, it was proved by many that the Sun was only the centre of our solar system and there were millions of Solar systems which are part of countless galaxies. And we are a very small part of one very small galaxy.  All those who propounded these theories were––when they theorized about these issues––in an insignificant minority but the changes that their theories brought about are now accepted universally, except for a handful. It is the minority that brings in change. And that is why it is crucial to give freedom to the minority and to protect their rights to disagree. Because it is only through questioning and disagreement that progress and change happens.

The Buddha said, ‘Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or where you heard it’. If it is something which has been practised for centuries––if your teacher tells you; your parents tell you; those in power tell you; those who are supposed to be knowledgeable people tell you, that this is what the done thing/correct thing is, don't believe them. Don't believe anything unless it agrees with your own reason and your own consciousness. Everything that you are told, you have to question. Do not accept anything just because it comes from apparently knowledgeable people. This is crucial to remember in a society like India and all traditional societies. No progress is possible without questioning all received knowledge.

We have been told from day one not to ask questions. In class, when you ask many questions the teacher says, ‘Why are you always asking questions?’ But if a student does not ask questions, how do they gain knowledge? The area of the known expands only through questions. We need to remember that the area of the unknown is always larger than the area of the known. Whatever you know about anything, there is more to know about it always. That is how knowledge expands.

So these are two thoughts I wish to leave you with––the language you choose to speak in and secondly, the need to ask questions––before moving on.

I have been asked to speak on mythology and history. There are a couple of things that one must remember about myths. Mythology is based on faith. It does not change. It deals with certainty. Any body of thought that has answers for everything makes life very easy. You don't have to think. As opposed to that, history, like sciences, deals with uncertainty. It is through uncertainty and questions that knowledge expands. What is described as history is constantly being redefined.

What was given to us as history, especially when I was in school, was very simplistic––there was a Hindu period, there was a Muslim period and then there was a British period. It was only when I got  to my graduation or early parts of my post-graduation that questions began to be raised against this framework by historians.

If you have a Hindu period and a Muslim period, then the third period could not be an English period. It should be called a Christian period. Furthermore, in the Hindu period, all the rulers were not Hindus and all those who lived in that period were not Hindus. There were followers of other religions and sects and there were atheists and sceptics––the last two have always been there––but they were always in a minority and could be ignored by those who led the majority intellectually. There were non-believers, followers of Charvaka and Lokayata, there were those who believed in other religious philosophies like Buddhists, Jains etc. and many among them ruled over vast territories and over long periods like Ashoka and other Buddhist and Jain rulers. So, how is that just the ‘Hindu’ period? And when you get to the so-called ‘Muslim’ period, a large number of mansabdars and administrators were non-Muslims. There were Hindus, there were Jains, there were followers of other sects––panths and so on and so forth. So how is that the ‘Muslim’ period? And then came the English who colonized us and they said this is the English period. The first two are decided ostensibly on the basis of the religion of the rulers. So the third period should be a Christian period. Historians questioned this periodization and from the late 1960s and the Ancient, Mediaeval, Modern and Contemporary history periodization that those historians proposed is now accepted. In fact now early Mediaeval and late Mediaeval periods have replaced the periodization of the singular Mediaeval period proposed in the late 1960s.

But the next question was not asked. And we have not asked it as yet. All of you have heard of Islamic architecture and Hindu architecture. But have you ever heard of Christian architecture? The term does not exist. There is no Christian architecture! There is Baroque, Renaissance, Gothic, Classical, Neo-Classical, Art-Deco, Prussian, Slavic, Hispanic, Portuguese but no Christian architecture.

There were these four small islands that colonized us for 200 years. In those islands, you have Scottish, Irish, Welsh and English architectures but in the vast sub-continent of South Asia you only have Hindu architecture! We seem to have no Hoysala architecture, no Chola architecture, no Chera architecture, no Gurjara-Pratihara architecture, no Jodhpur and no Jaisalmer, Bengal, Gujarat, Kangra, Assam, Kashmir, North- Eastern India or other regional, styles of architecture? And from Morocco to Lahore, there is just one kind of architecture! Is there no Ethiopian architecture, Egyptian architecture, Libyan architecture, Arabic, Iraqi, or Iranian architecture?

That is how myths are created and invented. That is why we need to question. In a place like India and all other traditional societies, there is a serious problem. Perhaps it is more serious in South Asia than in any place in the world––we don't know where myth ends and history begins.

Through archaeology you know about the Harappan civilization––when it began, when it flourished, when it perished and of its existence over a large swath of time. It is believed to have existed about 2,500 years prior to the beginning of the present era (Common Era). So we are talking about a time about 5,000 or 4,500 years ago. If the Mahabharata is history, when did it happen? In the Dvapara Yuga? In the Treta Yuga? When was the Dvapara Yuga? 5,000 years ago? 50,000 years ago? Half a million years ago? If you want to make sense of the story of the Mahabharata, you have to time it. If you were to start looking for evidence about the Mahabharata, where will you dig? How deep do you dig? And if you cannot dig, then how will you decide whether it is pure mythology, or part truth and mostly mythology?

We are told that the land in Kurukshetra is red because of the blood of the tens of thousands of soldiers who were killed. Let's assume that it happened 5,000 years ago. Has it not rained in Kurukshetra for the last 5,000 years? The bloodstains don't wash away? And if the colour of the soil in Kurukshetra is evidence that Mahabharata happened there, then what about the land in Karnataka, which is also red? Or coastal Kerala? Why is the soil red there? Which Mahabharata happened there? Is it history or beautiful poetic expression or is it because the colour of the rock in these regions––decomposed over millions of years to become the red soil of parts of the Deccan plateau.

In all the versions of the Mahabharata, there are descriptions of battles. They narrate stories of horse-drawn chariots, thousands of arrows shot, spears thrown, elephants running amuck. How many days did the battle last? The battle is said to have lasted eighty days. And if one goes by that count, millions of arrow would have been shot. Have we found a single arrowhead in Kurukshetra which has been dated to anywhere near 5,000 years ago? Have we found shards of a broken chariot? Nails? Horseshoes? All these were made of iron. It does not dissipate in earth in 5,000 years. We have found iron in different parts of the world. And we are being able to date it. Why is there no evidence that can be retrieved from Kurukshetra?  As historians, this is the question we have to ask.

So you created an idea of the past based on a text which has no evidence to support it. There is another famous epic in Rome––the Iliad. Does anybody in Rome believe it to be history? I believe that the Mahabharata is an even greater epic—in terms of literature, in terms of the complexity of the plot, in terms of how literary possibilities are resolved and the complex questions of morality that are raised. It is a very complex text. Why would we not leave it be as one of the greatest epics ever created by humanity? Why should we reduce it to history? That is the problem that students of history struggle with.

We have to learn to draw this line. If it is a matter of faith, then there is no question. It is there in our holy books as it is there in the holy books of all religions. Let me tackle something other than the Mahabharata. Let us take the story of creation common to the three semitic religions––Judaism, Christianity and Islam In this myth it is said that the entire universe was created in seven days. Six days to be exact. God got tired and took rest on the seventh day. According to one strain, God rested on a Saturday. According to another, he rested on a Sunday. According to the third, he rested on a Friday. It is the same God; all the prophets/agents he sent to the world are the same. From Adam to Abraham they are the same prophets. However, there is still debate about the day God took rest. To resolve this conflict, I support a four-day-working week. Let everybody take rest between Friday and Sunday.

Who created the world? Was it this God, who is followed by these three religions or was it Brahma? Which one of them is history? Are both of them or all of them history? Where is the evidence?

We can see a lot of changes in our existence; changes we draw that result from various practices. That is how we define our identities. We think our culture is very ancient.  In fact there are a lot of people who would say, ‘Panch hazaar saal purani sanskritik parampara hai hamari (We have a 5,000-year-old tradition).’ Who decided it was 5,000 years old?

The discovery of carbon steel happened purely accidentally. We had no idea about carbon. Through a process of melting and cooling, we discovered a variant of steel that could be moulded into sharp edges and was strong enough to cut stone. That happened about 5,000 years ago. Before that, there was no carbon steel anywhere in the world. And as long as you do not have steel, you do not have any instruments to cut stone. So all the great structures, carved out of stone, were made in the last 5000 years. Still, we persist with this idea of an unchanging culture.

Everything that all of you are wearing is of alien origin. No stitched garment in India is of Indian origin. Not one. It is the Greeks who brought scissors to India. Now all the myths you have about attire in India are all post the Greek incursions. All the 200 varieties of rotis and parathas we eat became possible because of the Greeks––they brought with them the grinding stone. There were no grinding stones in India before the Greeks.  So all we were eating before the arrival of the Greeks was some kind of porridge.

So now, it is these ideas of mythology––which we think is history––that begin to inform the way we live.

How many of you have travelled to Fatehpur Sikri? In Fatehpur Sikri, the guide will stand in front of a structure with a sloped roof and tell you, ‘This is Jodha Bai’s Rasoi (Jodha Bai’s kitchen).’ On one particular occasion, he had with him five or six tourists. He said that that was the kitchen of Akbar’s chief queen. I interrupted him and asked why Jodha Bai had a separate kitchen of her own? He answered, ‘Because she was vegetarian.’ ‘Who tells you that?’, I retorted. ‘I know about members of the royal family at Amer and most of them are meat-eaters. A large number of Rajputs and Kshatriyas are meat-eaters. Why was she a vegetarian?’ He had no response but to reiterate that she was a vegetarian. Moreover, we know that Akbar was not married to a Jodha Bai; he was married to the daughter of the Rana of Amer and her name was Harka Bai. The marriage of an individual named Jodha Bai to Akbar is an invention that has no basis in history.

I did not want to argue with the guide and deferred to him. I asked him my next question, ‘Was not Jodha the mother of Jahangir?’ He said, ‘Yes! She was his senior-most queen.’ I said, ‘Couldn’t Akbar afford a maid for her? She was his senior-most queen after all. Why does she need a separate kitchen?’  Generation after generation of tourists have been told that this is the Rasoi of Jodha Bai. There is even an ASI slab which says, ‘Popularly known as the Rasoi of Jodha Bai.’ This, however, was the office of the keeper of the Harem.

There is another legend that talks about Sita ji ki Rasoi, a place was identified in 1949 inside the so-called Babri Masjid at Ayodhya––so-called because Babar never went to Ayodhya, one of his commanders, Meer Baqi, built a mosque there and named it after his king Babar. The legend that Sita Ji's Rasoi was built at the same spot is well-known but has anybody asked why Sita Ji should be cooking in the rasoi when they are no longer on their Vanvas (exile in the forest), Lord Ram has regained his throne and Sita Ji become the queen. Why is she in the kitchen cooking? Why isn't an army of maids doing it for her?

This anecdote is related to something else. What is the source of the idea that places Sita Ji, the beloved queen of Lord Ram and much later the senior-most Queen of Akbar, the most powerful king in the world, cooking their own food in their own kitchens and in neither case is there a maid, dasi or kaneez helping them or cooking for them. It is time we began to ask some very basic and common-sensical questions.

Isn't the idea of this myth rooted in a discourse that places women in a subservient position, keeping them within the four walls, even if she is the queen of Lord Ram or in the latter case, the favourite queen of Akbar? Is it not true that this understanding has its roots deeply entrenched, among large populations, in the patriarchal attitude towards women that does not encourage girls to study, use cell phones, take up jobs and draw same salaries as men for the same work and get a status equal to men in our society.

Question and Answer Session

Audience Member 1: I would like to ask you a few questions. Are these myths only found in Hinduism or do they also occur in different faiths and believes? I would like to add that I believe that myths are not constructed to divide society and sow the seeds of discrimination, rather they encourage unity. I think myths point us towards understanding what is right and what is wrong. They prescribe and proscribe actions to find solutions to problems. I fail to see what is wrong with myths that allow for us to understand right and wrong?

Sohail Hashmi: Firstly, I would like to point out that my focus was on myths whose foundations were in Hindustan, not only those that are ‘Hindu’. If we look at some of the Abrahamic faiths, their myths lead us to believe that God made the world in seven days. It is very easy to dismiss that myth because we have scientific evidence that tells us otherwise. Should we not apply the same yardstick of scientific scrutiny upon other myths as well? I have talked about these myths and the myths mentioned in the Iliad. I was talking about the difference between Myths and History with specific reference to our land but myths belonging to all regions and all faiths fall in the same category.

The Big Bang Theory happened many billions of years ago and it has taken nature around six billion years to get where we are now. Rocks serve us evidence that about 200 million years ago a portion of what is now Australia had broken away and was travelling towards the North West. We even know at what rate that rock was travelling. It collided with the Eurasian plate and the Tibetan plateau. The folding and faulting led to the creation of the Himalayas. We have evidence to support how and when these things happened.

Now you can place that initial statement before you too––God made the world in seven days. We have to choose––do we believe mythology or scientific evidence? That’s a decision we need to take. Our future depends on the decision we take, the choice we make. It is the same about any mythology, weather Abrahamic, Gond, Bhil, Santhal, Khasi, Naga or the myths associated with the Aryans or born among any other community.

Mythology is a kind of coded knowledge. You leave a message for the next couple of generations that contains within it your ideas of what is right and what is wrong, each generation adds their own to the myths and passes them on that’s what mythology is. Unfortunately, we have selected only a couple of mythologies and privileged them at the expense of others.

There are many versions of the Ramayana. There is no evidence to prove that only Tulsidas’ Ramcharitmanas is the true Ramayana. We need to recognize that the central story of the Ramayana might be common in all versions but there are variations in detail and it is the variations that give them their unique identity.

While shooting for a film, we came across a version of the Ramayana that differed in a major way from the way we had grown up hearing the story. This was a tribal version of the Ramayana. The person I was interviewing said, ‘Is kahani ko bahar mat le ke jana. Hume maar diya jaayega (Don’t take this story outside these borders; we will be killed).’ That is the Bhil Ramayana. In Tamil Nadu, they have Kampan’s Ramayana. In  Maithil Pradesh, where Sita is believed to have been born, there is yet another Ramayana.

The Dasaratha Jataka is the first reference to the legend of Rama. This is a Jataka––a sermon of Gautam Buddha. If you wish to read this you may refer to India’s Contribution to World Thought and Culture, published in 1970, by the Vivekananda Kendra Prakashan Trust. An abridged version has been published in 2022. This is a very different Ramayana from the one we know today

Why am I talking of the Dasaratha Jataka, I am doing so because historically this is the first written mention of the Legend of Ram. The story is first recorded by a disciple of the Buddha. There is no written reference to the Legend of Ram prior to the time of the Buddha, that is a mere 2500 years ago. the legend had been transmitted orally prior to this time, can you rule out the possibility that newer versions could have evolved, regional variations, with local stories being woven in and in the process the legend itself being transformed or at least modified in details.

Then there is Chandravati's Ramayana, written in what is now Bangladesh in the sixteenth century, during the reign of Akbar, at the same time when Goswami Tulsidas was writing the Ramcharitmanas. Chandravati's Ramayana is important because it is written from the point of view of Sita, Ravan's wife, Mandodri, Laxman's wife and Urmila among a range of other women who get short shrift in the regularly read Ramayana, also get to express themselves.

So, in conclusion there are many Ramayanas and many Mahabharatas. We have merely privileged a singular narrative and declared it the ‘truth.’

If you ever travel to Bhopal, do visit the Museum of Man where you will find the Mithak Vithi or ‘Gallery of Legends’. There you will find the Gond legend of creation alongside the stories of creation narrated by other tribal communities that inhabit Madhya Pradesh and these are different from the myths of the Abrahamic faiths, the ones found in the Valmiki Ramayana or that found in the Kampan Ramayana. Each community has their own theory of creation, their own gods and their own legends, some have been privileged, they belonged to those who came to dominate parts of the world, others have been side-lined and these belonged to those communities that were marginalized over time.  Which of these legends is true? Is any of these true? That is the question history has to ask and has also to study these legends as pointers to the societies that created them.

Audience Member 2: Sir, our conference encourages us to teach history for Peace. My understanding is that our conference should be directed at teaching us how to take lessons on teaching history to promote peace (shanti) but I don’t think much of what you have said encourages peace. I also firmly believe that not all myths are false. Whilst I am in agreement with you about many of the things you have spoken about, I wanted to ask––how come a large portion of the Class X NCERT textbooks deal with myths? They tell us about certain people who worship certain kinds of trees––the peepal tree. Being a Brahman’s son I have never seen a God in a tree, nor I have seen those who cut peepal trees chased by ghosts. I believe that these myths encourage us to not cut peepal trees because they convert carbon dioxide into oxygen––more oxygen than other trees––and have many other beneficial properties. So, I think myths encourage us to promote good habits.

Sir, you also mentioned Sita ki Rasoi (Sita’s kitchen) and Jodha Bai ki Rasoi (Jodha Bai’s kitchen) in your talk. You said that these labels were created to further entrap women into domestic life, particularly the kitchen. However, I would have preferred it had you followed Kabir’s way i.e. equally rebuked both Hindus and Muslims. Kabir says:

Kankar pathad jori ke masjid liye banai

Ta chadhi Mullah bang de, kya behra hua Khudai

(With rocks and stones, this Mosque you have built

For the Mullah to climb it and give the call; Is God deaf?) 

What about the myths of Muslims?

As a teacher in a private school, I often observe that on Fridays children do not wish to come to school because there is Jumme ki namaz (prayers on the day of Jumma), what is the myth behind that? I don’t know; I wish to learn. What was the myth behind triple talaq? What is the myth behind Nikah Halala?

I apologize if I sound disrespectful, however, if we were to truly talk about peace in our classrooms, we have to talk about these things. Otherwise we might be leading our children astray. Thank you.

SH: Peace can and will eventually come when we learn to give the same freedom and space to those who hold different opinions and beliefs than us, not mere tolerance of difference but celebration of difference is the essence of Democracy.

Knowledge, as I have already submitted, grows with raising questions and when questions are raised and answered, exchange happens in an atmosphere of equality and tolerance. You say, “I believe that not all myths are false.” I would say that Myth is a widely held belief or idea, that has no scientific basis. For example, you claim that Peepal produces more oxygen than other trees, I would humbly request you to show me the scientific evidence. Common sense would tell you that large trees with thicker foliage would produce more oxygen and recycle more carbon dioxide. Both theories will need to be tested

People have claimed that the Tulsi plant produced Oxygen even at night and a cow inhales oxygen and exhales oxygen. I would say show me the evidence. Trees have a different metabolism than animals, we need to show through scientific study that the cow's metabolism is different from all other animals.

If myth fosters love among all, I'll embrace it with great eagerness but myths that discriminate between people on the basis of gender, skin colour, caste, religious beliefs, eating habits, attire or language need to be questioned. It Is only when we have rejected all ideas that discriminate between people can we move towards peaceful co-existence.

With regard to your second query, Christians have their weekly prayers on Sundays, the Jews on Saturdays, Muslims on Fridays. Each believes that these are days reserved for offering prayers to the creator of the universe and everything that exists and he is known as Jehovah, God or Allah.

Worshipers of Hanuman Ji, Ganesh, Durga and Kali, observe special prayers and fasts on Tuesdays, Surya Devta is worshipped on Sundays, Wednesdays are reserved for the worship of Lord Krishna or Vitthal and Thursdays for the worship of Lord Vishnu.

Have you wondered about the myths associated with these fasts and observances or those that encourage reserving one day of the week for one or more gods and other days for other gods? Why are you curious only about Friday prayers? You need to widen your curiosity and question other Myths as well.

Much is being made of Triple Talaq and Halala Nikah. Both are terribly pernicious and anti-women practices, as are practices like the ghoonghat and the veil. Among such practices are—child marriage, dowry and daughters not getting a share in their father's property. Let us recognize that all so-called socially sanctioned practices, regardless of religion, are mainly anti-women. Look at it dispassionately. All this boils down to a question of Democracy. If we want 50 per cent of the population to enjoy a democratically equal status in the politics of the country, we will have to do away with all social norms that discriminate against women, regardless of the religion they belong to. As in the case of Friday Prayers, our questions should also be directed against these practices if we really want women to be equally empowered as men are in all societies.

Teaching has been described as a noble profession, as teachers our job is not only to provide answers but also to teach our students to critically analyse and ask the right questions.

Audience Member 3: If one wishes to end any nation’s culture (sanskriti), one can just end their language. My question arises from this statement: as a teacher how do I traverse the interface between language, myth and history? To whom does language belong if at all it belongs to anyone?

SH: The idea of a nation as we understand the term today is essentially a concept that developed in Europe, during the French revolution in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. A nation was seen to consist of a people that shared a common history and were united through a common culture, expressed through a common language. Most of the small European countries were also mostly mono-religious societies and could thus be organized as nation-states over time.

Mechanically applying these parameters to vast multi-language, multi-cultural and multi-religious societies in the Asiatic parts of the erstwhile USSR, South Asia and elsewhere has led to the emergence of disturbed and fractured societies.

The question of language in India has to be seen in this context. Several hundred languages are spoken in India. Most of the spoken languages in India belong to a family of languages that have been described  as the Indo-Aryan group of Languages, which belong to a branch of the Indo-European languages. Those speaking languages belonging to this group constitute 77 per cent of the population of India. Those who speak the languages belonging to the Dravidian group of languages are about 21 per cent of the population. Those speaking languages belonging to the Austroasiatic group of languages constitute 1.2 per cent of our population and those speaking languages belonging to the Tibeto-Burman group of languages constitute 0.8 per cent of the population of India. There are languages spoken in the Himalayas that have yet to be classified.

We know that a culture finds expression through its language. We have 22 officially recognized national languages. All of them have been granted equal status by the Constitution of India. Hindi and English are languages that the states and the centre use to communicate with each other. The Centre can—if it so wishes—communicate with the states of the ‘Hindi Belt’ in Hindi or English. It uses English with the non-‘Hindi Belt’ states and they use English for communicating with the Centre and their own language for communicating within the state.

India is a Union of States, with some areas under the jurisdiction of the Centre, some areas under the jurisdiction of the States and some areas under the Concurrent List. In the absence of one National Language, the question of a National Culture, National History or Myth does not arise. We need to recognize, accept and celebrate our diverse Histories, Languages, Cultures and Myths. That is perhaps the best way to recognize the phenomenal strength of our people who have lived together for thousands of years with the myriad expressions of our diversity.