The Vanity of Wisdom

                              Hira Charan Narjinari

The learned professor of History Dr. Ramesh Chandra Kalita in his article entitled “Asamar Bukat Barna-Baisammyabadi Rajyar Janma Jantrana” that appeared in the Assamese daily Dainik Agradoot in two instalments on 20 and 22 November 2013 is an interesting reading. However, the very heading of Dr. Kalita’s article is fallacious. Blinded with either pride or ignorance Dr. Kalita has used the term Varna-Vaisyamma to define the Bodos which is not at all applicable to them. Because the Bodo Race does not believe in Varna-Jati system and hence calling the Bodos as Barna-baisyamabadi is totally wide of the mark.   

Through his article Dr. Kalita has tried to show his knowledge. But in his haughtiness he lost his own intellect and presented himself as a man of laughing-stock in the eyes of erudite scholars. By spilling of abomination on the Bodo intellectuals he has not only shown himself as bigoted but has reviled the entire Bodo community by furnishing incoherent information on the history of the Bodo people.

It would be better if we take up at seriatim to comment on his deliberation on the subject. Let us first begin with Para 1 of his article. In this Para Dr. Kalita states that river and place names in Upper Assam testifies the existence of historic Kachari kingdom during the medieval period. However, according to him there is no trace of Bodo elements in the river names of Lower Assam. We agree that all the river names may not be of Bodo origin but some rivers in Lower Assam and North Bengal are of Bodo origin. For example, Pagladi, Kaldia, here di is a Bodo element. Ai is not an Aryan name. Tista, Torsa, Mujnai etc., are of Bodo origin. Jaldhaka is sanskritisation of Bodo name Dichu. Many place names in Jalpaiguri district were given by the Bodos. These place names are still extant. Anyway, he states that he cannot accept the view that in the past there was a great Bodo kingdom in the region because he does not find any traces of Bodo elements in river names. How could Dr. Kalita find a great Bodo kingdom unless he undertakes reconstruction of the history of Assam? He must first study and understand what the term Bodo signifies then only he would be able to develop an idea about the Bodo people. 

In Para 2, Dr. Kalita has strongly criticised Sir Edward Albert Gait accusing him for his being prejudiced in writing his A History of Assam. Dr. Kalita believes that with the exception of a few Marxist historians, all other historians have distorted the history of India. According to him the book contains elements for political divisiveness and the book was written for colonial interest only. He states that Gait’s history book has influenced the Bodo intellectuals to dip themselves into the sea of imagination for Bodoland State. As a teacher of history Dr. Kalita is aware of what history means and what the function of an historian is. Even a Marxist historian E.H. Carr has impartially defined history thus: “History consists of a corpus of ascertained facts. The facts are available to the historian in documents, inscriptions and so on, like fish on the fishmonger’s slab. The historian collects them, takes them home, and cooks and serves them in whatever style appeals to him.” [E.H. Carr, What is History? Second Edition, 1987, p.9].

In the same way Gait had collected facts or materials from different sources and presented his finished work in the form of a book which has been adjudged as the magnum opus. He states that Gait had received assistance of Golap Chandra Barua, a clerk, in writing his History of Assam. Dr. Kalita’s statement that at the time when Gait was compiling Assam’s history there was no one who was highly qualified to assist him clearly shows that Barua was unqualified and his assistance to Gait was trifling. Dr. Kalita should know that it was Golap Chandra Barua who edited Ahom Buranji written in Tai-Ahom language with parallel English translation and published it in 1930. 

By making derogatory remarks about Gait and Barua and undermining their works Dr. Kalita has probably wanted to tell the present generations that he excels them in wisdom and is greater in erudition than Gait and Barua. Hiren Gohain praised him as “a devoted scholar to the discipline and profession he has chosen.” [R.C. Kalita, Assam in the Eighteenth Century, 1992]. But this adjective appears to be wrongly applied on him because he might be a devoted scholar to his profession but his present article under review does not qualify him to be so. For in his present article, he has clearly shown his chauvinistic character. The article is highly provocative and there are sufficient ingredients for creating animosity between the Assamese people and the Bodos. 

In Para, 3 Dr. Kalita states tales, fairy tales, legends, myths, ballads &c., are the foundations of literature and history and hence he says that ingredients for history or Bodo country will not be available in these works. Any average person knows that myths are stories generally not believed to be true, or at least, not literary so and they may involve impossible adventures or supernatural creatures. Any knowledgeable person is aware of the fact that myths, legends, fairy tales are not historically true. He also remarks that despite having educational qualifications sometimes men remain as a child in intellect. There is no doubt that by this remark he has loathingly pointed his fingers towards the Bodo scholars. Does Dr. Kalita consider himself to be the only highly qualified master of history and the rest are qualified bamboozle? Be it known to him that any student of history knows it well that history concerns actual events that are documented through the evidences.

In Para 4, Having said that history is a chronological and methodical records of past events Dr. Kalita quotes some historians’ definition of history to substantiate his view. Then he brings in Irawati Karve and Dr. Jogiraj Basu and states that according to their works during the time of the Mahabharata the people used to eat beef.  He particularly mentions the name of the book written by Dr. Basu. He says that Dr. Basu in his book ‘India in the age of the Brahmanas’ has recorded that people used to eat beef. However, he has wrongly named the said book, but actually the book is titled as “India of the age of the Brahmanas”, published by Sanskrit Pustak Bhandar (Kolkata) in 1969.

How a scholar like Dr. Kalita who is sceptic of other scholars’ works could easily believe Smt. Karve’s and Dr. Basu’s statements on beef-eating without cross-checking the Vedas and the Mahabharata? He should have personally investigated into the authenticity of what the above scholars have stated about beef-eating during the time of the Vedas and the Mahabharata instead of quoting them. He opines that it would be unjustified now on the testimony of history of beef-eating to reintroduce beef-eating by any member of Hindu community. Likewise, he thinks, demanding a separate State by the Bodos on the basis of past real or fake Bodo history is not justified. He then childishly says that society and State or country do not fall from the sky just in a day. He alleges that those who play politics under the garb of historians are trying to split the society.  In fact, this statement applies exclusively only to Dr. Kalita himself because he is the person who is spreading hatred against the original inhabitants of the State by writing derogatory treatise against them.

In Para 5, Dr. Kalita discusses about how different people immigrated into the ancient Assam and made it their home. He writes that the Ahoms started from the province of Yunan in China in 1215 A.D. and by 1228 A.D. they came to the foot of the Naga Hills and there they founded their kingdom. My question is where did he get the above dates from? Shall we not presume that he must have consulted some books for his information? The dates of starting and arrival of the Ahoms as mentioned by Dr. Kalita tally with the dates given by E.A. Gait in his A History of Assam. Will Dr. Kalita deny that he has not utilised Gait’s history?

He says that it is not a big question when the Bodo people migrated to Assam, though out of many questions it is a question too, yet it is not a special one because there is no answer to it. By saying there is no answer Dr. Kalita has a deliberate intention to undermine the Bodo sentiments. The sum and substance is that his reservoir of historical knowledge does not contain any records about Bodo people. Naturally, he has proved himself that his knowledge of history is limited. If he were an impartial teacher of history he would have certainly made efforts to know as to whether there is any history that relates Bodo kingdom. Probably, Dr. Kalita was never inquisitive to know as to when the ancestors of modern Bodos came to Assam and by what names their ancestors were known. Hence, he is quite in the dark about their advent. 

Paras 6 and 7 are irrelevant for any comments.

In Para 8, Dr. Kalita has criticised Dr. S.K. Chatterji in strongest terms for his book called Kirata-jana-Kriti. He smelt a big conspiracy against the Assamese people behind writing of the said book. Dr. Kalita has deliberately accused Dr. Chatterji that he did not provide sources for his writings. However, if he had sincerely read the said book he would have noticed that wherever necessary Dr. Chatterji has furnished references, though no bibliography was appended to the book. He also accuses Dr. Chatterji for describing Maharaja Naranarayan of Cooch Behar as ‘Indo-Mongoloid king of Bengal’. In this case also Dr. Kalita is misinformed. Nowhere in his book Kirata-jan-Kriti, has Dr. Chatterji used the above term. This proves that he has not minutely read Dr. Chatterji’s book.

He states that no words of history are infallible like the Vedas, because he thinks that historical truth changes with the discovery of new evidences, if not, cultivation of historical studies would have ended with Gait, S.K. Chatterji, S.K. Bhuyan and H.K. Barpujari and there would not have been any necessity for a scholar like Ramesh Chandra Kalita to emerge as a historian. Dr. Kalita, who does not even know about his own neighbour the Bodos, imagines himself to excel Gait, Chatterji, Bhuyan and Barpujari in wisdom. What profited Dr. Kalita by self-praising? Does he consider himself to be the greatest historian in the world? There is a saying which goes like this: One who thinks himself as a great man is not really a great man but a great man is he who other people say great. Anyway, Assamese people are so fortunate that they are blessed with the greatest historian in the person of Dr. Ramesh Chandra Kalita. They should be proud of Dr. Kalita.

Our learned teacher of history writes that historical truth always changes with the discovery of new evidences. His view is certainly correct. But historians may differ in their opinions on certain controversial historical explanation but there are certain facts which always remain the same and it does not change. We know that the Dewany authority over the provinces of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa was conferred by King Shah Alam in perpetuity on the East India Company, by a firman or royal grant on 12 August 1765. This is historically true because the date is supported by documentary evidence. Hence we cannot say that the Firman was signed on 12 August 1764 or 1766. 12 August 1765 is a major historical event which cannot be changed or altered. As a teacher of history Dr. Kalita should know that accuracy of facts is most important for historians.

Para 9 is irrelevant for comment.

In Para 10, he says that he had earlier stated that all Mongoloid people are not Bodos and in spite of that if the Bodos imagine that all Mongoloid people are Bodos then he is quite helpless in the matter. There is no doubt about it that Dr. Kalita’s thought on the subject is the produce of his barren brain.  Because no Bodo scholars have so far claimed that all Mongoloid people belong to Bodo race.  Next, he counsels the Bodo intellectuals to claim all Mongoloid people as belonging to Tibeto-Burman speaking people and bring them together to form a State or a country. Here also Dr. Kalita has shown his own imprudence.

In 1936, Kaliram Medhi in his Assamese Grammar and Origin of the Assamese Language stated that Kalitas are pure Aryans. Now Kalitas speak a language called Assamese. Can we consider that all Aryans speak Assamese? From an inscription of Persian king Darius in Naqshe-e-Rostam we learn that he was an “Aryan from the Aryan race”. Shall we then say that king Darius spoke Assamese and he was a Kalita?  In reality this is not so. I think Dr. Kalita has been so blinded with jealousy against the Bodos that he could not make any head or tail of what he is writing about.  Tibeto-Burman is a language group within the Sino-Tibetan family and Tibeto-Burman languages are spoken in Myanmar, China, India, Nepal, Bhutan, Thailand, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Laos and Vietnam. (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/595009/Tibeto-Burman-languages).  Again within the Tibeto-Burman language family there are divisions. Isn’t Dr. Kalita aware of this fact?

 In Para 11, Dr. Kalita states that after Independence Chapter X of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 was amended under the leadership of Gopinath Borodoloi and created Tribal Belt or Block for reserving lands for the tribals. By making such erroneous statement the learned teacher of history proved his own imprudence before the readers of his article. The fact is that Chapter X was not amended but it was added by the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation (Amendment) Act, 1947 to provide protection not to tribal people but to backward classes. It was only after this Act came to be operative Chapter X was amended for the first time in 1964 and then in 1981 and then in 1990. By a Notification No.RD.69/46/18, dated 5^th December 1947, the State Government had specified (a) Plains tribals, (b) Hills tribes, (c) Tea Garden tribals, (d) Santals, (e) Scheduled Castes and (f) Nepali cultivator-graziers as the backward classes of people entitled to protection in protected belts and blocks. [See D.K. Gangopadhyay’s Land Administration in Protected Belts and Blocks Assam, 1991 and K.N. Saikia edited The Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886, 1^st edition 1965  & 2^nd edition 2003]. Another interesting thing is that Dr. Kalita could not distinguish between belt and block and hence he mixed up the concept of belt and block by saying belt or block. Belt differs from Block and as of 30^th July 1990 there were 17 tribal Belts and 30 Tribal Blocks. Again he supposes that as per his information the Borodoloi government did not make any detailed survey of the areas before they were converted into tribal belts and blocks. Interestingly, Dr. Kalita has not supplied any source of his information in support of his contention. As a teacher of history he is quite aware that facts are to be supported by evidence without which it becomes redundant.    

On the testimony of H.L. Dampier, Dr. Kalita states that the Kacharis were migratory race even in 1868 and they used to migrate from one place to another so that they can evade payment of tax and enjoy life affluently. It is agreed that some Kacharis might have had migrated from one place to another for jhum cultivation but that does not mean that entire community used to migrate en masse. According to Report on the Census of Assam 1881 the population of the Kacharis was 265,418. Supposing in 1868 the total population of the Kacharis was only 165,418 deducting 100,000 then shall we expect that 165,318 persons used to migrate constantly? Will Dr. Kalita give us explanation to this?    

Para12. Dr. Kalita concludes his long article expressing surprise as to how the Bodos demand a separate State in an area where the Ana-Bodo population is 72-70 per cent while the Bodos are only 28-30 per cent. He then says how 30% Bodos demand a separate State for themselves in an area where 70% Ana-Bodos live permanently. He is so confused about the ratio of Bodo and Ana-Bodo percentage that he contradicts in furnishing the percentage. Another interesting thing is that he equates the Bodos with the White people of South Africa who according to him had comprised only 15% of the population but they ruled over the Black people atrociously. In other words, the Bodos are outsiders in Bodoland Territorial Council area and a day will come when 72-70/70 per cent Ana-Bodo people will be victorious as Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela was in South Africa, to establish democracy. However, Dr. Kalita has not questioned why non-protected class of people got land in the Tribal Belts and Blocks that are protected for the tribal people and other backward class.   

Dr. Kalita accuses the Bodos for fostering racism and states that the Government of India will not allow to such people xenophobic State to form. Isn’t it an interesting topic? Can Dr. Kalita vouch that the caste Hindu Assamese people never fostered racial discrimination? Dr. Kalita may not be able to recollect the gruesome violence perpetrated by the Assamese people on the Bengali Hindus during the 1960s in which nine persons were killed and one hundred injured, 4019 huts and 58 houses were vandalised and destroyed, because at that time he was just 12 or 13 years old. Can we not call this racialism? Whatever it may be, history tells us that despite strong opposition from the Assamese people the Bodos have been given geopolitical power safeguarded under the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution of India. There is no ambiguity that Bodoland State will be formed today or tomorrow. But one thing Dr. Kalita should note that time is fast approaching when the name Assam may be a thing of the past and the coming generations may reminisce saying that once there was a State called Assam. Therefore, those intellectual or scholars who are publicizing fallacious information about and antagonistic attitude towards the Bodo people and other tribal people should commence pondering on their own destiny.