R. C. Majumdar



Ramesh Chandra Majumdar (4 December 1884 – 11 February 1980) was an Indian historian and professor of Indian history at the.


 * See also The History and Culture of the Indian People

Quotes

 * Unfortunately some archaeologists seem to have no eyes to see anything but what the spade digs up from the bowels of the earth, and no ears to hear anything that is not echoed from excavated ruins.
 * (Majumdar 1959, 11). 1959. "Rgvedic Civilization in the Light of Archaeology." Annals of the Bhandarfcar Oriental Research Institute 40:1-15.  in Bryant, E. F. (2001). The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture : the Indo-Aryan migration debate. Oxford University Press. chapter 9

The History and Culture of the Indian People

 * This world tendency to make history the vehicle of certain definite political, social and economic ideas, which reign supreme in each country for the time being, is like a cloud, at present no bigger than a man’s hand, but which may soon grow in volume, and overcast the sky, covering the light of the world by an impenetrable gloom. The question is therefore of paramount importance, and it is the bounden duty of every historian to guard himself against the tendency, and fight it by the only weapon available to him, namely by holding fast to truth in all his writings irrespective of all consequences. A historian should not trim his sail according to the prevailing wind, but ever go straight, keeping in view the only goal of his voyage—the discovery of truth.

Ancient India

 * Indians of old were keenly alive to the expansion of dominions, acquisition of wealth, and the development of trade, industry and commerce. The material prosperity they gained in these various ways was reflected in the luxury and elegance that characterized the society... The adventurous spirit of the Indians carried them even as far as the North Sea, while their caravans traveled from one end of Asia to the other.
 * R. C. Majumdar, Ancient India, 1977, p. 210-216.


 * There can be no doubt that the architects who planned and built the were Indians. Everything in this temple from Sikhara to the basement as well as the numerous stone sculptures found in its corridors and the terra-cotta...adorning its basement and terraces, bear the indubitable stamp of Indian genius and craftsmanship...In this sense, we may take it, therefore, that the Ananda, though built in the Burmese capital, is an Indian temple."
 * ' R. C. Majumdar, Ancient India, 1977, p. 497.''

Volume I

 * I have approached the subject from a strictly historical point of view. It is an ominous sign of the time that Indian history is  being viewed in official circles in the perspective of recent politics.  (xxii-xxiii)


 * The official history of the freedom movement starts with the premises that India lost independence only in the eighteenth century and had thus an experience of subjection to a foreign power for only two centuries. Real history, on the other hand, teaches us that the major part of India lost independence about five centuries before, and merely changed masters in the eighteenth century. (xxii-xxiii)
 * History Of The Freedom Movement In India Vol. 1 quoted also in Elst, Koenraad (2014). Decolonizing the Hindu mind: Ideological development of Hindu revivalism. New Delhi: Rupa. p. 310-311


 * There are some obvious difficulties in writing a history of the movement for freedom in India only fifteen years after it was achieved, and by one who has himself passed through the most! eventful period in it, covering the third and fourth phases mentioned above. We are all too near the events to view them in their true perspective. I have been a witness to the grim struggle from 1905 to 1947, and do not pretend to be merely a dispassionate or disinterested spectator ; I would have been more or less than a human being if I were so. My views and judgments of men and things may, therefore, have been influenced by passions and prejudices. Without denying this possibility, I may claim that I have tried my best to take a detached view. On the other hand, I possess certain advantages also#in having a first-hand knowledge of the important events and the fleeting impressions and sentiments they left behind on the minds of the people. It is difficult to form a proper idea of these by one who, living at a later period, has only to rely on the record of the past in order to re- construct its history. Although these reflections do not directly, concern the present Volume, indirect influence cannot altogether  be ruled out. I have therefore tried to place before the reader  all the relevant facts, leaving them to form their own conclusions.  As the feelings and impressions of a class or community, whether  justified by facts and events and reasonable or not, are of great  significance in history, I have, wherever available, quoted at some length views of representative persons whose names carry some weight. (xv-xvi)


 * For, in any discussion of the question whether the revolt of 1857 was the first national war of independence or not, the real character of> the outbreaks of the civil population must be the decisive factor. A detailed statement of actual, facts, based on authentic sources, is calculated to give a more accurate and definite idea on the subject than any amount of abstract theory or argument. The officially Sponsored Centenary Volume of the Mutiny doe9 not contain sufficient details of this nature, and hence I thought it necessary to add them to counteract the current view that the outbreak of 1857 was the first national war of independence. I have tried, to show, with the help of the details given, that it was neither 'first', nor 'national,' nor 'a war of independence. (xvii)


 * After all, history is no respecter of the feelings of persons and communities, and one cannot alter the facts of history. (xviii)


 * The mere fact that the author of this book happens to be a Bengali should not stand in the way of expressing this truth out of a false sense of modesty. It is a truism that parochialism should not influence an author’s judgment. What it really means is that parochial feeling must not lead him either to exaggerate or to minimize the value or importance of the part played by the narrow geographical region to which he might belong. Both are equally wrong. His views and statements should be judged by the normal canons of criticism and must not be discredited off-hand on the gratuitous assumption of partiality for his own people or province. I leave it to the readers to judge for themselves whether the role attributed to Bengal is right or not. I may be wrong, due to ignorance, particularly of the language and literature of other parts of India, or error in judgment, and I shall be the first to admit it if I am convinced by facts and arguments ; but I shall fail in my duty as a historian' if I desist from stating what I believe to be true, simply out of the fear that it will be set down to parochialism. If I have laid an undue stress or emphasis on any point or aspect, I shall welcome a challenge which, if supported by facts and arguments, is bound to advance or correct our knowledge of history, and there- by do a great deal of good. (xviii - xix)


 * But such an attempt was never made in India, as the existence of two such fundamentally different political units was never fully realized by the Hindu leaders. Even today the Indian leaders would not face the historical truth, failure to recognize which has cost them dear. They still live in the realm of»a fancied fraternity and are as sensitive to any expression that jars against the slogan of Hindu- Muslim bhai bhai, as they were at the beginning of this century. Verily the Bourbons are not the only people who ever forgot the past and never learnt any lesson even from their own history. I yield to none in a genuine desire to promote communal harmony and amity. If I have violated the political convention of the day by revealing the very unpleasant but historical truth about the relations between the Hindus and Muslims, I have done so in order to elucidate and explain the course of events in the past, not unmingled with the hope that our leaders would draw some useful lessons for the future. In any case, I may assure my readers that I have done so with good will to both the communities and malice to none, being convinced that the solid structure of mutual amity and understanding cannot be built on the quicksands of false history and political expediency. Real understanding can only be arrived at by a frank recognition of the facts of history and not by suppressing and distorting them. These considerations have prompted me to discuss Hindu-Muslim relations in a correct historical perspective. Be it also remembered that such a discussion is indispensable in order to offer a rational explanation of the birth of Pakistan. (xix-xx)


 * There is hardly any doubt that the net result of Syed Ahmad’s policy was to widen the cleavage between the two great communities in India, but perhaps it would be more correct to say that he was not so much anti-Hindu as pro-Muslim. He might well say, like the great Roman, Brutus, that it was not that he loved the Hindus less but that he loved the Muslims more. The one aim of his lie was to promote the Muslim interests, come what may. (436)


 * The differences between the Hindus and the Muslims were undoubtedly accentuated by the policy of 'Divide and Rule systematically pursued by the British throughout the 19th century. As far back as 1821 a British officer wrote in the Asiatic Journal : “Divide et Impera should be the motto of our administration,” and the policy was supported by high British officers. At first the policy was to favour the Hindus at the expense of the Muslims, for, as Lord Ellenborough put it. “that race is fundamentally hostile to us and therefore our true policy is to conciliate the Hindus.” It was not till the seventies when the Hindus had developed advanced political ideas and a sense of nationalism that the British scented danger and began to favour the Muslims, now turned docile, at the expense of the Hindus. From about the eighties it  became the settled policy of the British to play the Muslims against the Hindus and break the solidarity of the people.  Since then the British argument against conceding the political demands of the Congress has always been 'that it would be impossible for England to hand over the Indian Muslims to the tender mercies of a hostile numerical majority.’ (436ff)


 * These communal riots may be justly regarded as an outward manifestation of that communal spirit which grew in intensity throughout the nineteenth century and at last drove the Hindus- and Muslims into two opposite camps in politics. The ground, was prepared by the frankly communal outlook of the Muslims, typified by the Wahabi Movement and the Aligarh Movement. The situation was rendered worse by the policy of Divide and Rule adopted by the British Government with the definite object’ of playing one community against the other. The spectre of communalism which haunted Indian politics even at the close of the nineteenth century was destined to grow in size and volume as years rolled by. The cloud that was no bigger than a man's, hand in 1900 soon overcast the whole sky and brought rain, thunder and storm which drenched the whole country with blood and tears in less than half a century. (440)

Volume II

 * The four-fold ramification of the Swadeshi movement industrial, educational, cultural and political—and its spread all over India unnerved the Government of India. It was not long before they realized that a local movement for removing a local grievance was being slowly, but steadily, developed into an all-India national movement against British rule. Lord Minto found it difficult to kill the hydra-headed monster let out of the basket of his predecessor. Lord Curzon.
 * When the Nawab was being taken in a procession through the public streets, there occurred a case of assault on Hindus, and looting of a few Hindu, particularly Hindu Swadeshi, shops. These incidents were a signal for a general outbreak of hooliganism involving assault, looting, destruction of properties and arson… On the other hand, the Government officials were full of praise for the Muhammadans…The Comilla riot was followed by various other outbreaks of a similar nature….Consider able bodies of Muhammadans, armed with lathis mustered from time to time and molested the Hindus. As a result there was wide-spread panic among the Hindu minority population in East Bengal…
 * The most serious disturbance .broke out at Jamalpur in the District of Mymensingh. In addition to the troubles in the town started by the Muslims in the course of which hundreds of Hindus—men and women—had to take shelter in a temple throughout the night, the riot spread to outside area. There were indiscriminate looting and molestation of Hindus in a large number of localities.
 * The accused, Habil Sircar had read over a notice to a crowd of Musalmans and had told them that the Government and the Nawab Bahadur of Dacca had passed orders to the effect that nobody, would be punished for plundering and oppressing the Hindus. Soon after, the image of Kali (Hindu goddess) was broken by the Musalmans and the shops of the Hindu traders were also plundered.
 * R.C. Majumdar (2002). THE PARTITION OF BENGAL. History of the Indian Freedom Movement Vol 2, p 3.


 * The Partition of Bengal and the foundation of the Muslim League widened the cleavage between the Hindus and the Muslims. The passionate outburst against the Partition which was noticed not only all over Bengal, but more or less all over India, was in striking contrast to the delight with which the Muslim League welcomed the measure. It undoubtedly gave great offence to the Hindus to see that the way in which Government practically disregarded the wishes of the entire Bengali community found support in u section of the population. The Partition was not merely an administrative measure ; it was a deliberate outrage upon public sentiment. But even more than this, it brought to the forefront a great political issue namely, whether India was to be governed autocratically without any regard to the sentiments and opinions of the people, or on the enlightened principles professed by the British rulers. Looked at from this point of view, the Partition invited a trial of strength between the people and the bureaucracy. It was a momentous issue far transcending the mere wishes and opinions or even the interests of once community or another. It was a national issue of vital importance and the attitude of the Muslims naturally constituted one of the greatest shocks to the national sentiments in India. 227ff

Volume III

 * Generally communal riots were confined to the British territory, and the Indian States were free from them. A  serious riot in 1924 in Gulburga, in the Nizam's territory,  formed an exception. The Muhammadan mobs attacked  all the Hindu temples in jthe city, numbering about fifteen,  and broke the idols. They also raided the Sharan Vish-  veshwar Temple and attempted to set fiie to the Temple  car. The Police were eventually obliged to fiie, with the  result that three Muhammadans, including the Police Superintendent Mr. Azizullah, were killed and about a dozen  persons injured. Next morning the streets were again in  the hands of Muhammadan mobs and considerable damage was done to Hindu houses and shops. On the arrival  of Police reinforcements, order was restored. On the 14th  August the Muslim mob fury was at its height and almost  all the temples within the range of the mob, some fifty  in number, were desecrated, their sanctum sanctorum entered  into, their idols broken, and their buildings damaged.
 * also in Balakrishna, S., Lessons from Hindu History in 10 Episodes (2020)


 * A mystic  or saint — such  as  Gandhi  undoubtedly  was  is  beyond  the purview  of  political  history,  but  in  dealing  with  Gandhi as  the  great  leader  of  the  Indian  National  Congress,  a purely  political  organization  fighting  for  freedom  from British  yoke,  history  must  apply  to  him  the  same  standards of  judgment  and  criticism  as  have  been  applied  to  all  other personalities,  great  or  small,  who  have  played  any  role  in political  affairs.  Sober  history  must  subject  the  public  life of  Gandhi  to  a  critical  and  rational  review  without  passion or  prejudice,  uninfluenced  in  the  least  by  personal  feelings of  admiration  or  devotion,  and,  above  all,  by  a  disposition or  proneness  to  believe  as  right  and  proper  whatever  he might  have  chosen  to  do  or  say.  Such  history  must  begin by  discounting  the  halo  of  semi-divinity — and  therefore  also of  infallibility — which  was  cast  round  Gandhi  during  his life  and  continues  to  a  large  extent  even  now,  thanks  to the  propaganda  to  exploit  his  name  for  political  purposes. I  yield  to  none  in  my  profound  respect  for  Gandhi, the  saint  and  the  humanitarian.  But  as  the  author  of  this volume,  I  am  only  concerned  with  the  part  he  played  in the  struggle  for  India's  freedom  from  the  British  yoke. I  have  necessarily  to  view  his  life  and  activities,  thoughts, and  feelings  primarily  from  a  narrow  angle,  namely  as  a politician  and  statesman  leading  a  great  political  organization which  was  not  intended  to  be  a  humanitarian  association or  World  Peace  Society,  but  had  been  formed  for  a  definite political  object,  namely,  to  achieve  India's  freedom  from political  bondage.  It  has  been  my  painful  duty  to  show that,  looked  at  strictly  from  this  point  of  view,  the  popular image  of  Gandhi  cannot  be  reconciled  with  what  he  actually was.  A  historian  must  uphold  the  great  ideal  of  truth which  was  so  dear  to  Gandhi  himself,  and  if  we  delineate the  political  life  of  Gandhi  with  strict  adherence  to  truth, the  whole  truth  and  nothing  but  the  truth,  it  will,  I  believe, be  patent  to  all  that  Gandhi  was  lacking  in  both  political wisdom  and  political  strategy — as  we  commonly  understand these  terms — and  far  from  being  infallible,  committed  serious blunders,  one  after  another,  in  pursuit  of  some  Utopian ideals  and  methods  which  had  no  basis  in  reality.  It  will also  be  seen  that  the  current  estimate  of  the  degree  or  extent of  his  success  bears  no  relation  to  actual  facts. I  am  not  unaware  of  the  rude  shock  that  such  treatment would  give  to  a  large  section  of  Indians  and  the  great  probability that  they  would  curse  or  at  least  denounce  the  author without  perhaps  even  going  through  the  book  itself.  But I  am  sustained  by  two  considerations.  In  the  first  place, I  have  sincerely  tried  to  uphold  the  dignity  of  history  by telling  the  truth  as  it  has  appeared  to  me  in  the  light  of such  judgment  or  intellect  as  God  has  vouchsafed  to  me. I  have  done  no  less — I  could  do  no  more.  Secondly,  the adverse  criticisms  I  have  made  against  Gandhi — and  the most  serious  ones  at  that — have  almost  all  been  upheld  by one  or  more  of  his  most  admiring  devotees,  perhaps  in some  unguarded  moments  of  their  lives  or  when  they  were free  from  the  magic  influence  of  their  political  Guru.   (xviii ff)


 * That Gandhi  played  a  very  great  role  in  rousing  the  political  consciousness  of  the  masses  nobody  can  possibly  deny. But  it  would  be  a  travesty  of  truth  to  give  him  the  sole credit  for  the  freedom  of  India,  and  sheer  nonsense  to look  -upon  Satyagraha  (or  Charka,  according  to  some)  as  the unique  weapon  by  which  it  was  achieved.  As  mentioned above,  Gandhi’s  followers  could  not  wield  this  weapon forged  by  him  and  therefore  *  it  never  came  into  play.  A successful  Satyagraha,  as  conceived  by  Gandhi,  would  necessarily mean  that  the  British  had  given  up  their  hold  on  India  in  a  mood of  repentance  or  penitence  for  their  past  sinful  acts  in  India. But  of  this  we  have  no  evidence  whatsoever. (xxiii)


 * Jinnah, at  least  in  is  a  er life  put  up  a  brave  fight.  It  was,  however,  a  fight  not  for the’  freedom  of  India,  except  in  a  very  qualified  sense,  but for  the  freedom  of  the  Muslims  from  the  tyrannical  yoke of  the  Hindus,  as  he  put  it.  He  won  the  fight  ;  the cult  of  violence  decided  the  issue.  To  what  extent  Gandhi s cult  of  non-violence  may  claim  credit  for  the  freedom  of  India is  a  matter  of  opinion.  But  there  is  no  doubt  that  the creation  of  Pakistan  was  the  triumph  of  violence— in  its naked  and  most  brutal  form-and  of  the  leadership  of Jinnah.  Nobody  can  reasonably  doubt  that  India  would have  surely  attained  independence,  sooner  or  later,  even without  Gandhi,  but  it  is  extremely  doubtful  whether there  would  have  been  a  Pakistan  without  Jinnah. So, if we  are  to  judge  by  the  result  alone,  the  events  of  1946-7 testify  to  the  superiority  of  violence  to  non-violence  in  practical politics,  and  of  Jinnah  to  the  leaders  of  the  Congress.  But  this  affords  an  illustration  of  the  blunder  that  is  often  committed by  hasty  inference  drawn  from  the  immediate  result,  apparently  flowing  from  a  certain  course  of  action,  without  weighing  the  force  of  other  circumstances.  It  ought  to  serve as  a  corrective  to  those  who  look  upon  Gandhi  as  having wrested  independence  from  the  British  by  waving  his  magic wand  of  Satyagraha.  In  any  case  Jinnah  stands  out  as the  most  successful  political  leader  of  the  period.  Whatever  the  Hindus  might  think  of  Jinnah,  he  has  secured a  high  place  in  the  history  of  the  Muslim  nation,  a  term at  which  we  can  hardly  cavil  after  the  foundation  of Pakistan.  He  carried  to  its  logical  consummation  the  work that  was  begun  by  Sir  Syed  Ahmad. (xxviii ff)


 * It is,  therefore,  not  unlikely  that the  views  I  have  expressed  may  not  commend  themselves  to  any,  and  perhaps  a  large  section  of  my  countrymen  would  bitterly  resent  some  of  them.  But  I  find  consolation in  the  wise  saying  of  one  of  the  greatest  Sanskrit poets  to  the  effect,  that  ‘there  may  be  somewhere,  at  some time,  somebody  who  worild  agree  with  my  views  and appreciate  them  ;  for  time  is  eternal  and  the  world is  wide  and  large’.  I  may  assure  my  readers  that  it  has been  a  very  painful  task  to  have  to  comment  adversely on  the  views  and  actions  of  some  of  our  great  leaders like  Mahatma  Gandhi  and  Pandit  Jawaharlal  Nehru  who are  held  in  the  highest  veneration.  I  shall  not  be  surprised if  what  I  have  said  about  them  hurts  the  feelings  of  many. My  only  excuse  is  that  it  is  impossible  to  avoid  all  such comments  in  writing  on  a  subject  such  as  is  treated  in this  book.  I  may,  however,  assure  my  readers  that  I  have always  tried  to  tell  the  truth,  and  in  doing  so  followed no  other  guide  than  the  light  of  my  own  judgment,  sincerely  formed,  with  malice  to  none  and  goodwill  to all,  and  without  any  personal  or  ulterior  motive  of  any  kind.  xxxiii


 * It is  hardly  necessary  to  say  that  August  15  was hailed  with  joy  all  over  India,  and  no  words  can  adequately  describe  the  tumultuous  scenes  of  wild  rejoicings witnessed  in  every  city  and  every  village.  Lord  and  Lady Mountbatten,  driving  in  state,  were  greeted  with  resounding cheers  by  the  enthusiastic  crowds  that  lined  the  streets. This  heralded  a  new  era  of  goodwill  between  India  and Britain.  Stories  of  many  hard  and  bitter  struggles between  India  and  Britain,  and  of  animosities  between the  Indians  and  the  British  fill  the  pages  of  this  work. Let  it  end  with  a  note  of  goodwill,  trust,  and  confidence which  manifested  itself  on  the  streets  of  Delhi  on  15 August,  1947. How  the  author  wishes  that  he  could  have  closed this  volume  with  a  similar  note  in  respect  of  the  relation between  India  and  Pakistan.  But  that  was  not  to  be. Instead  of  an  era  of  goodwill,  the  independence  ushered in  one  of  communal  hatred  and  cruelty  of  which  there is  perhaps  no  parallel  in  the  recorded  history  of  India. It  is  unnecessary  to  recount  that  story  of  shame  and barbarity  as  it  falls  beyond  the  period  under  review. (819 ff)

Quotes about R.C. Majumdar

 * No doubt, every generation will produce a host of historians, but it will take decades to produce one of Dr. Majumdar's calibre.
 * Prabha Dixit, Obituary. RC Majumdar., quoted in Devahuti, D., & Indian History and Culture Society. (1980). Bias in Indian historiography. Delhi: D.K. Publications. p. 402


 * But then, R.C. Majumdar was made of the stuff of Bharatavarasha’s Modern Renaissance. He was undeterred in his quest to author the most authentic history of the freedom struggle of his own countrymen: to keep their hopes, pains, sacrifices, spirit, struggles and tears ever-fresh, and to preserve the vast woodland of their heroic memories watered and evergreen. For this proud son of Bengal, this noble endeavor was not merely a project: it was akin to working towards the same goal with the same spirit that fuelled our freedom struggle: Majumdar had after all, lived during that entire era. It was National Service in the truest sense of the word. And so, with meagre resources, he worked alone and completed the majestic three-volume work in just seven years. It still remains the most comprehensive, authoritative and unchallenged work on India’s freedom struggle. This point has an immense bearing on what will follow.
 * S. Balakrishna, Seventy years of secularism. 2018.


 * Most of us worshipped at this altar of ‘progress’. We denigrated historians like R.C. Majumdar who spent their lives in understanding the Indian historical sources. We sang hymns in praise of the bullies who could neither read an original ancient text nor decipher an inscription. We were given sermons on the glory of the Marxist approach and the value of diverse sociological and anthropological models. Dissidents were quickly dubbed rightist reactionaries.
 * Dilip K. Chakrabarti - Archaeology in the Third World, A History of Indian Archaeology Since 1947. (2003)


 * The only voice which was heard against this nation-wide exercise in suppressio veri suggestio falsi in the field of medieval Indian history, was that of the veteran historian, R.C. Majumdar. For him, this “national integration” based on a wilful blindness to recorded history of the havoc wrought by Islam in India, could lead only to national suicide.  He tried his best to arrest the trend by presenting Islamic imperialism in medieval India as it was, and not as the politicians in league with Stalinist and Muslim historians were tailoring it to become. .... But his voice remained a voice in the wilderness.  Fourteen years later, he [R.C. Majumdar] had to return to the theme and give specific instances of falsification.
 * Sita Ram Goel, The Calcutta Quran Petition (1986)


 * To sum up this subject of synthesis, assimilation, and composite culture, I would better quote Dr. R.C. Majumdar, one of the best and certainly the most versatile historian which modern India has known.
 * Goel, S. R. (2001). The story of Islamic imperialism in India.


 * The tale contains an institutional warning also: for this is not the first time that the project to write the history of the freedom movement has been hijacked, and eventually derailed. In the Introduction and Appendix to his three-volume History of the Freedom Movement in India, Dr R.C. Majumdar recorded what happened to the original project – how at his instance the Indian Historical Records Commission passed a resolution in February 1948 that a history of the country’s struggle for freedom ought to be prepared; how the education ministry headed by Maulana Azad sat over the matter till Dr Rajendra Prasad, the then president of the country, nudged it ahead; how an Editorial Board was set up; how Majumdar was appointed director for the project; how the first volume was prepared; how it met with the approval of the Editorial Board; how the government, having stated in one breath that the volumes were well on their way to getting ready, alleged in the next that there had been some differences in the Board about the content of the first volume which had been circulated; how suddenly the Board was dissolved; and the project handed over to a previous secretary of the education ministry; how some of the members become turncoats. The result? Mediocre volumes which no one reads, volumes which further what was then the official line… By contrast the British produced their version …. There was the Indian side to the events. This was available at the time in the recollections of those who had led the movement against the British – for many of them were still alive; it was available in their private papers. The Towards Freedom Project was to garner this record. As control over institutions passed to the Leftists, the entire project was yoked to advancing their Line and Theses.
 * Shourie, Arun (2014). Eminent historians: Their technology, their line, their fraud. Noida, Uttar Pradesh, India : HarperCollins Publishers.


 * What was Majumdar’s crime? He refused to bend history to suit the interest of the Congress.
 * ICHR: Are they ‘eminent historians’ or ordinary criminals in scholars’ robes?:Dr. N.S. Rajaram, FOLKS Mag, June 2012


 * [In 1948, R.C. Majumdar submitted a proposal to the Government to write an official history of the freedom struggle, a fact that he records in detail in the Appendix of Volume One of the History of the Freedom Movement in India. This first-ever proposal on this much-needed endeavour was accepted by the Government. What happened next is best narrated by Dr. B.N. Pandey...:] In 1952 the Ministry of Education appointed a Board of Editors for the compilation of the history. Professor Majumdar was appointed by the Board as the Director and entrusted with the work of sifting and collecting materials and preparing the draft of the history. However, the Board as consisting of politicians and scholars, was least likely to function harmoniously. Perhaps this was the reason why it was dissolved at the end of 1955. ... In [the first] volume the distinguished author has shown ample courage and sound scholarship in approaching some very controversial and delicate questions. On the question of Hindu- Muslim relationship in pre-British India he refutes the commonly held view that the Hindus and Muslims lived in harmony before the advent of the British and that the Hindu-Muslim tension was the outcome of the British policy to divide and rule. These two communities, the author holds, lived as "two separate communities with distinct cultures and different mental, and moral characteristics" (p. 33). He argues that the Hindu leaders, including Gandhi and Nehru, deliberately ignored the fundamental differences between the Hindus and Muslims and made no serious efforts "to tackle the real problem that faced India, namely how to make it possible for two such distinct units to live together as members of one State.
 * The Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, No. 1/2: [Apr 1966]: B.N. Pandey, pp 86-87. quoted in    S. Balakrishna, Seventy years of secularism. 2018.