Chapter 2 - ANCIENT INDIAN HISTORY WRITING
"One of the most interesting aspects of the study of history is knowing the history of history writing itself. It gives you an idea how history changes by the changing interpretation."
Indian Tradition of History Writing
How same data and the same evidence get completely different meaning in the hands of different scholars. In this chapter, we are going to learn precisely this aspect of ancient Indian history. We shall study when and how the writing of ancient Indian history began and how it progressed, traversing different paths over a long period of time. Many foreign scholars opined that Indians had no sense of history writing and whatever was written in the name of history is nothing more than a story without any sense. This appears to be a very harsh judgment. To say that Indians had no consciousness about their own history and no sense of writing history is simply incorrect. The knowledge of history was given a very high place in ancient India. It was accorded sanctity equal to a Veda. Atharvaveda, Brahmanas, and Upanishads include Itihas-Purana as one of the branches of knowledge. Kautilya in his Arthashastra (fourth century B.C.) advises the king to devote a part of his time every day for hearing the narrations of history. According to the Puranas, following are the subject matters of history: sarga (evolution of the universe), pratisarga (involution of the universe), manvantantar (recurring of line), vamsa (genealogical list of kings and sages), and vamsanucharita (life stories of some selected characters).
The Puranic literature is very vast and we have 18 main Puranas, 18 subsidiary Puranas and a large number of other books. It is interesting to note that in all the Puranas royal genealogies are dealt with the reign of Parikshit, the grandson of Arjun, as a benchmark. All the earlier dynasties and Icings have been mentioned in past tense. While the latter kings and dynasties have been narrated in the future tense. This may be because of the fact that the coronation of Parikshit marks the beginning of Kali Age. Many scholars think that this also points to the fact that perhaps the Puranas were completed during the reign of Parikshit.
ln the context of the Puranas it may be remembered that in ancient India, Itihas was looked upon as a means to illuminate the present and future in the light of the past. The purpose of history was to understand and inculcate a sense of duty and sacrifice by individuals to their families, by the families to their clans, by the clans to their villages and by the villages to Janapada and Rashtra and ultimately to the whole humanity. History was not meant to be an exhaustive compendium of the names of the kings and dynasties and their achievements etc. It was treated as a powerful vehicle of the awakening of cultural and social consciousness. It was perhaps, for this reason that the narration of Puranas was a part of the annual ritual in every village and town during the rainy season and at the time of festivals. The Puranas may not satisfy the modern definition of historiography or those of who the wrote "historian's crafts", have but been they wera fully aware or the purpose of their work and the purpose of history itself.
Many historians like F.E. Pargitar and H.C. Raychaudhury have attempted to write history on the basis of genealogies of various dynasties given in Puranas. The Greek ambassador Megasthenese (in the court of Chandragupta Maurya c. 324-300 B.C.) testifies the existence of a list of 153 kings whose reigns had covered a period of about 6053 years uptil then.
Kalhana's Rajatarangini is another work of history which is indeed a solitary example of its kind. It enjoys great respect among the historians for its approach and historical content.
Early Foreigners
When we look at the writings on the history of ancient India beyond the Indian frontiers, we find that earliest attempts were those of Greek writers. Most notable are Herodotus, Nearchus, Megasthenese, Plutarch, Arrian, Strabo, Pliny the Elder, and Ptolemy. However, except for Megasthenese, all others have touched Indian history in the true sense very marginally. They were concerned mostly with the northwestern part of India and primarily the areas which were either part of the Persian and Greek Satrapies or Alexander's campaign. Megasthenese wrote extensively in a book called 'Indica' which is no longer available to us. We know about Megasthenese's writings through various extracts in the writings of Diodorus, Strabo, and Arrian. It is very clear that Megasthenese had little understanding of Indian society and social systems. For example, he mentions that Indian; society comprised of seven castes (jatis).
The discrepancies in Megasthenese's works seem to be because of his lack of knowledge of any Indian language and being not part of Indian society and psyche. It is surprising that intensive trade relation with India during the first few centuries of the Christian era left such few traces in the Indian literary tradition of the period.
Next, an important phase of historiography begins with Al-Beruni, who was born in central Asia in A.D. 973 and died in Ghazni (present-day Afghanistan) in A.D. 1048 . He was one of the greatest scholars of his time and a contemporary of Mahmud of Ghazni. When Mahmud conquered part of central Asia, he took Al-Beruni with him. Though Al-Beruni deplored his loss of freedom, he appreciated the favorable circumstances for his work. Unlike Megasthenese, Al-Beruni studied Sanskrit language and tried to gain a precise knowledge of Indian sources. The list of works consulted by him is long and impressive. His observations range from philosophy, religion, culture, society to science, literature, art, and medicine. Al-Beruni's work can be termed as fairly objective and wherever he has faltered is not because of any other reason but his lack of proper understanding. Al-Beruni can be credited to be comparatively free from religious or racial biases, we so often encounter in the writing of his successor Muslim and European writers. However, sometime Al-Beruni does show his annoyance when he says sarcastically,
"......the Hindus believe that there is no country but theirs, no nation like theirs no kings like theirs, no religion like theirs, no science like theirs".
Christian Machineries And Enlightenment
The next phase of historiography belongs to the European interest mainly the Christian Missionaries. A large number of works were produced in India but none of them compared to the works of Al-Beruni. While Al-Beruni also possesses a well-defined religious and hermeneutics awareness, he was essentially a scholar and not driven to preach his faith. Most of the missionary, writings can hardly be said to be fair. They were more interested in learning and writing about Indian history in order to depict its flaws and prepare the ground for evangelical activity. Their contributions during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries are also affected by the religious, intellectual and political movements in Europe. However, it must be pointed out that all this led not only to the accumulation of a large amount of contributions about Indian history but also Indian history became the victim of political and religious problems of Europe.
With the coming of Enlightenment, another phase of European historiography on India begins. Many scholars like John Holwell, Nathaniel Halhed, and Alexander Dow - all associated in various capacities with te British East India Company wrote about Indian history and culture proving the pre-eminence of Indian civilization in the ancient world.
On the basis of Puranic sources, they also described the immense antiquity of human race. Holwell wrote that Hindu texts contained a higher revelation than the Christian one and they pre-dated the flood described in the Old Testament and that, "the mythology, as well as cosmogony of the Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans, were borrowed from the doctrines of the Brahmins". Halhed also critically examined the various aspects of Indian history, religion, mythology etc. He discussed the vast periods of time of human history assigned to four Yugas and concluded that human reason can no more reconcile to itself the idea of Patriarchal longevity of few thousand years for the entire span of human race. Based on the huge amount of literature produced in Europe during the seventeenth and eighteenth century Europe, many scholars and intellectuals who had never traveled to India wrote about it. The great intellectual and statesman, Voltaire viewed India as the homeland of religion in its oldest and purest form and also as the cradle of worldly civilizations. Voltaire was convinced of the priority of Indian achievement in the area of secular learning and worldly culture. He describes Indians as the people,
"whom we owe our numbers, our backgammon. our chess. our first principles of geometry and fables which have become our own."
He further wrote,
"In short I am convinced that everything - astronomy, astrology, metaphysics, etc. - comes to us from the bank of Ganges".
The French naturalist and traveler Pierre de Sonnerate also believed that all .knowledge came from India which he considered as the cradle of civilizations. In 1807 the well-known metaphysician Schelling wrote, "what is Europe really but a sterile trunk which owes everything to oriental grafts?" The great philosopher Emanuel Kant also acknowledged the greatness of ancient Indian culture and civilization. He wrote,
"Their religion has a great purity...... (and) one can find traces of pure concept of divinity which cannot easily be found elsewhere". He also declared that Indian religious thoughts were free of dogmatism and intolerance.
Imperialist Historiography
We have earlier mentioned about the missionary activities in India and their interest, in writing Indian history. Besides the colonial interests, the establishment of Asiatic Society of Bengal in .1784 also contributed towards the writing of Indian History in its own way. However, it must be mentioned at this stage itself that much of these writings reflect the contemporary debate on religious faith and nationality and also their interests in enlarging the European colonies for economic exploitation. Some of the leading intellectuals of the nineteenth century trading of this path are William Jones, Max Muller, Monier Williams, J.S. Mill, Karl Marx and F.W. Hegel. The most prominent among the twentieth-century historians belonging to this school of thought was Vincent Arthur Smith ( 1843-1920) who prepared the first systematic history of ancient India published in 1904.
A large section of the European scholars became worried when the greatness of India's past started becoming popular and the Indian philosophy, logic, and writings on such things as the origin of the universe, humanity and its age etc. started gaining acceptance. For well over a millennium much of the Europe had accepted the Old Testament as the final testament documenting the history of human race. Thomas Maurice, for example, was bitterly upset and wrote in 1812 about,
"the daring assumptions of certain skeptical French philosophers with respect to the Age of the world ... argument principally founded on the high assumptions of the Brahmins ... (which) have a direct tendency to overturn the Mosaic system, and, with it, Christianity".
These people were also very worried about the Bible story of Creation. Bishop Usher had calculated that the whole universe was created at 9.00 a.m. on 23rd October 4004 B.C. and the Great Flood took place in 2349 B.C. These dates and creation stories were being threatened to be wrong in the face of Indian mythologies which talked in terms of four Yugas and several hundred million years. This threatened the very foundation of the faith.
However, the faithful were relieved by ''the fortunate arrival of... the va1ious dissertations, on the subject, of Sir William Jones". On his own part, Sir William Jones concern was second to none. He wrote in 1788, "some intelligent and virtuous persons are inclined to doubt the authenticity of the accounts delivered by Moses". Jones too was very clear that "either the first eleven chapters of Genesis... are true or the whole fabric of our national religion is false. a conclusion which none of us, I trust, would wish to be drawn".
In view of the growing concern of the faithful, Boden Professorships of Sanskrit at Oxford University was endowed by Colonel Boden, specifically to promote the Sanskrit learning among the English, so as to enable his countrymen to proceed in the conversion of the natives of India to the Christian religion'. Prizes were offered to the literary works undermining Indian tradition and religion. The first occupant of the Boden Chair was Horace Hayman Wilson. Writing about a series of lectures he gave, Wilson himself noted that, "these lectures were written to help candidates for a prize of £ 200 given by John Muir ... for the best refutation of the Hindu religious systems".
Friedrich Max Muller is considered as one of the most respected Indologists of the nineteenth century. He was a German but spent most of his life in England. On the request and financial support of the British East India Company, he undertook massive jobs of translation and interpretation of the Indian religious texts in English. Though he achieved an unparalleled feat of getting translated a huge mass of Sanskrit texts into English, thereby, bringing it to the knowledge of the English-speaking world, his approach and intention were never free from prejudice. They were necessitated by his religious belief and political requirements. Both these coloured the entire approach for the writing and interpretation of Indian history.
In 1857 Max Muller wrote to the Duke of Argyll, "I look upon the creation given in the Genesis as simply historical". Therefore. in terms chime span all he had was 6000 years i.e. up to 4000 B.C. within which entire history of the universe had to be fitted. It was under this guiding principle William Jones, Max Muller, Vincent Smith and others wrote Indian history.
Eager to settle the matter first William Jones undertook the responsibility of unravelling Indian chronology for the benefit and appeasement of his disconcerted colleague , " I propose to lay before you a concise history of Indian chronology extracted from Sanskrit books, attached to no system, and as much disposed to reject Mosoick history, if it be proved erroneous, as to believe it, if it is confirmed by sound reason from indubitable evidence". Despite such assurances, Jone's own predispositions on this matter were revealed in several earlier writings.
For example in 1788 he wrote, "I am obliged of course to believe the sanctity of venerable books [of GenesisJ''. In 1790 Jones concluded his researches by claiming to have "traced the foundation of the Indian empire above three thousand eight hundred years from now", that is to say, safely within the confines of Bishop Usher·s creation date of 4004 B.C. and, more important, within the parameters of the Great Flood, which Jones considered to have occurred in 2350 B.C. Same was the constraint with Max Muller when the question of the chronology of Sanskrit literature came up. Lacking any firm basis of his own and rejecting every Indian evidence, he arbitrarily dated the entire Sanskrit literature taking the earliest i.e. Rig Veda to be of 1500 B.C., once again) within the safe limits of Genesis chronology.
Such efforts on the part of European scholars, chiefly British, brought some relief and made this new approach safe for Christianity and its faithful followers. Assessing the impact of such works, mainly of Jones, Trautmann writes (1997),
Max Muller was not alone in this type of writing history and desiring to uproot all Indian tradition from the soil. Monier-Williams, famous for his Sanskrit-English and English-Sanskrit dictionaries, and a Boden Professor of Sanskrit at Oxford wrote in 1879,
As mentioned earlier, another factor which contributed to the distortion of ancient Indian history was the British imperial interests in India. By 1804 we find a marked shift in British attitude towards India. After the defeat of French forces at the hands of British and weakened Marn ha power. the British were sure of their rule over India. However. they were worried about the fact that British civilians coming to India were getting Brahmanised and developing an inferiority complex. To overcome this problem and to inculcate a sense of superiority complex among the British officers about the western culture they adopted a two-pronged strategy. First and the most important were the one initiated by the Utilitarian school led by Jame Mill who wrote six volumes on history c,f India between 1806 and 1818, Without ever visiting India or knowing any Indian language. In it, he divided Indian history into the three periods - first Hindu Period, second Muslim Period and third British Period without any logic and justification. He presented an extremely denigrading picture of the Hindu periods. He condemned every institution, idea, and action of the Hindu period and held Hindus responsible for all the ills of the country. This book was introduced as a textbook in the Harleybury school in England which was established to educate the young Englishmen coming to India as administrators and civil servants. James Mill, his son John Stuart Mill, and his disciple Thomas Macauley played a very important role in shaping the imperialist policy in India and the future of Indian education in the core of which was the distorted history of ancient India.
Following in the footsteps of James Mill, V.A. Smith, an ICS officer serving the British Government in India, prepared the textbook called Early History of India in 1904. As a loyal member of the civil service, he emphasized the role of foreigners in ancient India. Alexander's invasion accounted for almost one-third of his book. Smith's racial arrogance is obvious when he writes, "The triumphant progress of Alexander from the Himalayas to the sea demonstrated the inherent weakness of the greatest Asiatic armies when confronted With European skill and discip1lne". V.A. Smith gives the impression as if Alexander had conquered the whole of India from the Himalayas to seas while the fact has he only touched the northwestern borders of India and as we shall see in the relevant chapter it was a virtual non-event. Smith presented India as a land of despotism which did not experience political unity until the establishment of British rule. He observed, "Autocracy is substantially the only form of government with which the historians of India are concerned".
The whole approach of Imperial historians has been best summed up by historian R.S. Shanna. He observes,
Nationalist Approach
The difference of opinion and different interpretations on the same evidence is not only respected but also considered essential for the healthy development of the academic world. But the difference of opinion is quite different regarding the distortion of one's past history. The educated intelligentsia of the nineteenth century was horrified at the distortions of the ancient Indian history. In the late nineteenth century, some scholars like Rajendra Lal Mitra, R.G. Bhandarkar, and V.K. Rajwade tried to look at the ancient Indian history from the Indian point of view. Both Bhandarkar and Rajwade worked on the history of Maharashtra region and reconstructed the social, political and economic history of the area.
However, the real impetus and challenge to the imperialist version of history came in the first quarter of the twentieth century. Some of the most notable historians of this period are D.R. Bhandarkar, H.C. Raychaudhary, R.C. Majumdar, P.V. Kane, A.S. Altekar, K.P. Jayaswal, K.A. Nilakant Sastrii T.V. Mahalingam, H.C. Ray and R.K. Mookerji.
D.R. Bhandarkar (1875-1950) reconstructed the history of ancient India on the basis of epigraphic and numismatic evidence. His books oh Ashoka and on ancient Indian polity helped in clearing many myths created by imperialist historians. The biggest blow to the imperialist school in the realm of political ideas and institutions was given by K.P. Jayaswal (1881-1937). In his book Hindu Polity, published in 1924, Jayaswal effectively knocked down the myth that Indians had no political ideas and institutions. His study of literary and epigraphical sources showed that India was not a despotic country as propagated by the imperialist historians. Besides the hereditary kingship, India had the tradition of republics right from RigVedic times. He also convincingly showed that contrary to the views of British historians, Indian polity, and art of governance was far more developed than that of any other part of the contemporary world. His book Hindu Polity is considered as one of the most important book ever written on ancient Indian history.
H.C. Raychaudhury (1892-1957) in his book "Political History of Ancient India", reconstructed the history of ancient India from the time of Mahabharata war to the time of Gupta empire and practically cleared the clouds created by V.A. Smith. R. C. Majumdar is considered as the doyen among Indian historians He was one of the most prolific writers and has written on almost every aspect of Indian History. He wrote a large number of books covering the time period from Ancient India to the freedom struggle. The publication of Hi-story and Culture of the Indian People in eleven volumes under his general editorship is one of the most outstanding achievements. This multi-volume series deals with Indian history and civilization right from the prehistoric times to the India's independence in 194 7 and remains a singular reference work.
K.A. Nilakant Sastri (1892-1975) contributed immensely towards the understanding of South Indian history. His books like A History of Ancient India and A History of South India are the shining examples of brilliant scholarship. R.K. Mookerji (1886- 1964) was perhaps one of most outstanding writers when it came to expressing even the most difficult subjects in simple terms. His books like Hindu Civilization Chandragupta Maurya, Ashoka and Fundamental Unity of India put the cultural, economic and political history of India not only on a firm ground but also made it accessible even to a lay reader. P.V. Kane (1880-1972) was a great SanskritisL His monumental work entitled History of Dharmasastra in five volumes running into over six thousand pages is an encyclopaedia of social) religious and political laws and customs.
The contributions of all these great scholars helped in clearing the mist built by the missionaries and the imperialist historians.
Marxist School of History
The Marxist school of historiography used to be the most influential school of history in the second half of the last century. Despite the inherent contradiction and total failure of the Marxist model of history writings, it is academically important to discuss it and give respect to the contributions it has made.
The Marxists believe in universal laws and stages of history. They believe that all the societies pass through at least five stages of history- (i) Primitive Communism (ii) Slavery (iii) Feudalism (iv) Capitalism and (v) Communism.
These stages were defined by Karl Marx and F. Engels, the propounders of Communism. They clearly acknowledge their intellectual debt to F.W. Hegel and Lewis Henry Morgan. It must be mentioned here that the stages of history proposed by Marx and Engels were based on their understanding of European history. Before we come to Indian Marxist historiography it is important to know as to what Hegel and Marx said about Indian history and civilization.
G.W.F. Hegel (1770-1831) was a great western philosopher. Hegel was not an Indologist and made no attempt to learn Sanskrit or any other Indian language. He made use of translations, reports etc. His writings on Indian history and philosophy were based mainly on the writings of William Jones, James Mill and other British writers whose approach to ancient Indian history has already been discussed in detail. The results were indeed disastrous.
In the beginning, Hegel felt that India, as the Orient in general, has to be excluded from the history of philosophy. However, in the light of several wr itings though Hegel reluctantly accepted that India had a philosophical system and its history had great antiquity. he explicitly considered it to be inferior to that of the Greeks and the Romans. Even his contemporary European scholars were appauled at his conclusions about Indian history and philosophy. He was seen by ·them as a "prototype of Westerner" who saw western thoughts as a measure of all things: "Therefore, whatever he had to say about the "Indian world, turned out to be very insufficient; and the result was a caricature which shows ... that he ventured on a task for which he was not qualified ..." Despite such shortcomings, Hegel's inOuence is not confined to Europe alone. In India also there is a significant tradition of "Hegelianism"; "Neo-Hegelianism" and "Anti-Hegelianism".
Similarly, Marx was also very superficial in his knowledge about India and not really free from racial considerations. Most of what Marx had to say about India is found in newspaper articles. Marx took his lead from Hegel. Marx was a great votary of India being enslaved by British and dismissed India as a backward and uncivilized nation with no history. In 1853 he wrote,
Indian Marxist historians lay great emphasis on economic interpretation of all social and religious ideas, the customs, and institutions. Being allergic to religion and spirituality their irreverence saints and sages is too obvious. However, it must be mentioned that their writings, nevertheless have contributed immensely towards the understanding of various aspects of Indian history which had remained ignored earlier.
D.D. Kosambi can be called the first among the pioneers of this school of thought. D.R. Chanana, R.S. Sharma, Romila Thapar, Irfan Habib, Bipan Chandra, and Satish Chandra are some of the leading Marxist historians of India.
In the Marxist scheme of history, Marxism is an ideal philosophy and polity, and the Soviet Union was the ideal state. Since the break-up of Soviet Union and almost the total eclipse of Marxian polity and economy, the historians are finding it difficult to explain the reasons for the collapse. It is perhaps this phenomenon which has contributed to the loss of lustre in the Marxist historiography.
Multi-disciplinary Approach
Tn the last ten years due to the huge accumulation of data from various disciplines like archaeology, palaeontology, anthropology, astronomy and space research, there has been renewed interest m studying the ancient Indian history. Many scholars have broken the shackles of the old mould and have been looking at ancient Indian history in the light of data obtained from different disciplines. This is known as the multidisciplinary approach, examples of which will be seen in the following chapters.
For example in 1788 he wrote, "I am obliged of course to believe the sanctity of venerable books [of GenesisJ''. In 1790 Jones concluded his researches by claiming to have "traced the foundation of the Indian empire above three thousand eight hundred years from now", that is to say, safely within the confines of Bishop Usher·s creation date of 4004 B.C. and, more important, within the parameters of the Great Flood, which Jones considered to have occurred in 2350 B.C. Same was the constraint with Max Muller when the question of the chronology of Sanskrit literature came up. Lacking any firm basis of his own and rejecting every Indian evidence, he arbitrarily dated the entire Sanskrit literature taking the earliest i.e. Rig Veda to be of 1500 B.C., once again) within the safe limits of Genesis chronology.
Such efforts on the part of European scholars, chiefly British, brought some relief and made this new approach safe for Christianity and its faithful followers. Assessing the impact of such works, mainly of Jones, Trautmann writes (1997),
"Jones in effect showed that Sanskrit literature was not an enemy but an ally of the Bible, supplying independent corroboration of Bible's version of history. Jone's chronological researches did manage to calm the waters somewhat and effectively guaranteed that the new admiratwn for Hinduism would reinforce Christianity and would not work for its overthrow".Thus, the fate of Indian history now got intertwined with the safety and pleasure of Christianity. The culmination of the objectives and the results of the efforts of great European scholars of Indology is seen in private correspondence. Max Muller, writes to his wife of his monumental work of editing 50 vols. of Sacred Books of the East, " ... this edition of mine and the translation of Veda, will herein after tel a great extent on the fate of India and on the growth of millions of souls in the country. It is the root of their religio1 and to show them what the root is, feel sure, is the only way of uprooting all that has sprung from it during tb1 last three thousand years". Two yeanafter this, Max Muller wrote in 1868 to the Duke of Argyll, then Secretary of State for India, "The ancient religion of India is doomed, and if Christianity does not step in; whose fault will it be?"
Max Muller was not alone in this type of writing history and desiring to uproot all Indian tradition from the soil. Monier-Williams, famous for his Sanskrit-English and English-Sanskrit dictionaries, and a Boden Professor of Sanskrit at Oxford wrote in 1879,
"....when the walls of the mighty fortress of Brahmanism [HinduismJ are encircled, undermined and finally stormed by the soldier of the Cross, the victory of Christianity must be single and complete".Thus, we can safely say that most of the works done on Indian history during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries were perforce guided by the preconditions imposed by the belief in the Genesis and to counter all the writing that was projecting India's past in terms of great civilization and Indian philosophy and thoughts indicating great antiquity for the origins of universe and human beings.
As mentioned earlier, another factor which contributed to the distortion of ancient Indian history was the British imperial interests in India. By 1804 we find a marked shift in British attitude towards India. After the defeat of French forces at the hands of British and weakened Marn ha power. the British were sure of their rule over India. However. they were worried about the fact that British civilians coming to India were getting Brahmanised and developing an inferiority complex. To overcome this problem and to inculcate a sense of superiority complex among the British officers about the western culture they adopted a two-pronged strategy. First and the most important were the one initiated by the Utilitarian school led by Jame Mill who wrote six volumes on history c,f India between 1806 and 1818, Without ever visiting India or knowing any Indian language. In it, he divided Indian history into the three periods - first Hindu Period, second Muslim Period and third British Period without any logic and justification. He presented an extremely denigrading picture of the Hindu periods. He condemned every institution, idea, and action of the Hindu period and held Hindus responsible for all the ills of the country. This book was introduced as a textbook in the Harleybury school in England which was established to educate the young Englishmen coming to India as administrators and civil servants. James Mill, his son John Stuart Mill, and his disciple Thomas Macauley played a very important role in shaping the imperialist policy in India and the future of Indian education in the core of which was the distorted history of ancient India.
Following in the footsteps of James Mill, V.A. Smith, an ICS officer serving the British Government in India, prepared the textbook called Early History of India in 1904. As a loyal member of the civil service, he emphasized the role of foreigners in ancient India. Alexander's invasion accounted for almost one-third of his book. Smith's racial arrogance is obvious when he writes, "The triumphant progress of Alexander from the Himalayas to the sea demonstrated the inherent weakness of the greatest Asiatic armies when confronted With European skill and discip1lne". V.A. Smith gives the impression as if Alexander had conquered the whole of India from the Himalayas to seas while the fact has he only touched the northwestern borders of India and as we shall see in the relevant chapter it was a virtual non-event. Smith presented India as a land of despotism which did not experience political unity until the establishment of British rule. He observed, "Autocracy is substantially the only form of government with which the historians of India are concerned".
The whole approach of Imperial historians has been best summed up by historian R.S. Shanna. He observes,
"British interpretations of Indian history served to denigrate Indian character and achievements, and justify the colonial rule ... However, the generalizations made by historians were either false or grossly exaggerated. They could serve as good propaganda material for the perpetuation of the despotic British rule .... At the heart of all such generalisations lay the need of demonstrating that Indians were incapable of governing themselves".
Nationalist Approach
The difference of opinion and different interpretations on the same evidence is not only respected but also considered essential for the healthy development of the academic world. But the difference of opinion is quite different regarding the distortion of one's past history. The educated intelligentsia of the nineteenth century was horrified at the distortions of the ancient Indian history. In the late nineteenth century, some scholars like Rajendra Lal Mitra, R.G. Bhandarkar, and V.K. Rajwade tried to look at the ancient Indian history from the Indian point of view. Both Bhandarkar and Rajwade worked on the history of Maharashtra region and reconstructed the social, political and economic history of the area.
However, the real impetus and challenge to the imperialist version of history came in the first quarter of the twentieth century. Some of the most notable historians of this period are D.R. Bhandarkar, H.C. Raychaudhary, R.C. Majumdar, P.V. Kane, A.S. Altekar, K.P. Jayaswal, K.A. Nilakant Sastrii T.V. Mahalingam, H.C. Ray and R.K. Mookerji.
D.R. Bhandarkar (1875-1950) reconstructed the history of ancient India on the basis of epigraphic and numismatic evidence. His books oh Ashoka and on ancient Indian polity helped in clearing many myths created by imperialist historians. The biggest blow to the imperialist school in the realm of political ideas and institutions was given by K.P. Jayaswal (1881-1937). In his book Hindu Polity, published in 1924, Jayaswal effectively knocked down the myth that Indians had no political ideas and institutions. His study of literary and epigraphical sources showed that India was not a despotic country as propagated by the imperialist historians. Besides the hereditary kingship, India had the tradition of republics right from RigVedic times. He also convincingly showed that contrary to the views of British historians, Indian polity, and art of governance was far more developed than that of any other part of the contemporary world. His book Hindu Polity is considered as one of the most important book ever written on ancient Indian history.
H.C. Raychaudhury (1892-1957) in his book "Political History of Ancient India", reconstructed the history of ancient India from the time of Mahabharata war to the time of Gupta empire and practically cleared the clouds created by V.A. Smith. R. C. Majumdar is considered as the doyen among Indian historians He was one of the most prolific writers and has written on almost every aspect of Indian History. He wrote a large number of books covering the time period from Ancient India to the freedom struggle. The publication of Hi-story and Culture of the Indian People in eleven volumes under his general editorship is one of the most outstanding achievements. This multi-volume series deals with Indian history and civilization right from the prehistoric times to the India's independence in 194 7 and remains a singular reference work.
K.A. Nilakant Sastri (1892-1975) contributed immensely towards the understanding of South Indian history. His books like A History of Ancient India and A History of South India are the shining examples of brilliant scholarship. R.K. Mookerji (1886- 1964) was perhaps one of most outstanding writers when it came to expressing even the most difficult subjects in simple terms. His books like Hindu Civilization Chandragupta Maurya, Ashoka and Fundamental Unity of India put the cultural, economic and political history of India not only on a firm ground but also made it accessible even to a lay reader. P.V. Kane (1880-1972) was a great SanskritisL His monumental work entitled History of Dharmasastra in five volumes running into over six thousand pages is an encyclopaedia of social) religious and political laws and customs.
The contributions of all these great scholars helped in clearing the mist built by the missionaries and the imperialist historians.
Marxist School of History
The Marxist school of historiography used to be the most influential school of history in the second half of the last century. Despite the inherent contradiction and total failure of the Marxist model of history writings, it is academically important to discuss it and give respect to the contributions it has made.
The Marxists believe in universal laws and stages of history. They believe that all the societies pass through at least five stages of history- (i) Primitive Communism (ii) Slavery (iii) Feudalism (iv) Capitalism and (v) Communism.
These stages were defined by Karl Marx and F. Engels, the propounders of Communism. They clearly acknowledge their intellectual debt to F.W. Hegel and Lewis Henry Morgan. It must be mentioned here that the stages of history proposed by Marx and Engels were based on their understanding of European history. Before we come to Indian Marxist historiography it is important to know as to what Hegel and Marx said about Indian history and civilization.
G.W.F. Hegel (1770-1831) was a great western philosopher. Hegel was not an Indologist and made no attempt to learn Sanskrit or any other Indian language. He made use of translations, reports etc. His writings on Indian history and philosophy were based mainly on the writings of William Jones, James Mill and other British writers whose approach to ancient Indian history has already been discussed in detail. The results were indeed disastrous.
In the beginning, Hegel felt that India, as the Orient in general, has to be excluded from the history of philosophy. However, in the light of several wr itings though Hegel reluctantly accepted that India had a philosophical system and its history had great antiquity. he explicitly considered it to be inferior to that of the Greeks and the Romans. Even his contemporary European scholars were appauled at his conclusions about Indian history and philosophy. He was seen by ·them as a "prototype of Westerner" who saw western thoughts as a measure of all things: "Therefore, whatever he had to say about the "Indian world, turned out to be very insufficient; and the result was a caricature which shows ... that he ventured on a task for which he was not qualified ..." Despite such shortcomings, Hegel's inOuence is not confined to Europe alone. In India also there is a significant tradition of "Hegelianism"; "Neo-Hegelianism" and "Anti-Hegelianism".
Similarly, Marx was also very superficial in his knowledge about India and not really free from racial considerations. Most of what Marx had to say about India is found in newspaper articles. Marx took his lead from Hegel. Marx was a great votary of India being enslaved by British and dismissed India as a backward and uncivilized nation with no history. In 1853 he wrote,
"India, then could not escape being conquered, and the whole of her past history, if it is anything, is the history of the successive conquests she has undergone. Indian society has no history at all, at least no known history. What we call its history, is but history of the successive intruders who founded their empires on passive basis of that unresisting and unchanging society ... ".The Hegelian and Marxian approach to Indian history by and large remained dormant for a long time. It was largely non-existent during the British rule in India. After the independence of India, the Marxist school of historiography became one of the most influential and dominant schools. Following Marx's scheme, the history of India also came to be rewritten. Consequently, primitive communism, slavery. feudalism and capitalism i.e. the various stages of history propounded by Marx and Engels came to be applied in Indian History also. This school also, like the imperialist school, does not find anything good ·with Indian civilization. Like Marx, they feel that all that is good in Indian civilizat10n is the contribution of conquerors and that is why, according to this school, the Kushana period is the golden period and not the Satavahanas or Guptas. The period from the Gupta's to the conquest of Muslims in the twelfth century A.D. has been termed as the "Period of Feudalism'' i.e. ''Dark Age" during which everything degenerated. This has been despite the fact that, irrespective of political upheaval, there was an all-round development in the fields of literature, sciences. art. architecture, economy etc. Also, when it came to literary evidence and its chronology, they largely follow Max Muller and other British historians.
Indian Marxist historians lay great emphasis on economic interpretation of all social and religious ideas, the customs, and institutions. Being allergic to religion and spirituality their irreverence saints and sages is too obvious. However, it must be mentioned that their writings, nevertheless have contributed immensely towards the understanding of various aspects of Indian history which had remained ignored earlier.
D.D. Kosambi can be called the first among the pioneers of this school of thought. D.R. Chanana, R.S. Sharma, Romila Thapar, Irfan Habib, Bipan Chandra, and Satish Chandra are some of the leading Marxist historians of India.
In the Marxist scheme of history, Marxism is an ideal philosophy and polity, and the Soviet Union was the ideal state. Since the break-up of Soviet Union and almost the total eclipse of Marxian polity and economy, the historians are finding it difficult to explain the reasons for the collapse. It is perhaps this phenomenon which has contributed to the loss of lustre in the Marxist historiography.
Multi-disciplinary Approach
Tn the last ten years due to the huge accumulation of data from various disciplines like archaeology, palaeontology, anthropology, astronomy and space research, there has been renewed interest m studying the ancient Indian history. Many scholars have broken the shackles of the old mould and have been looking at ancient Indian history in the light of data obtained from different disciplines. This is known as the multidisciplinary approach, examples of which will be seen in the following chapters.
Exercises
- Explam the following: Vamsanucharit, Manvantantar, Sarga, Pratisarga, Yuga, Kalpa.
- Write short notes on: (i) Importance of History, (ii) Multi-disciplinary Approach, (iii) Biblical Concept of Creation
- Describe the Indian tradition of history writing.
- Wrile a note on the foreign travellers who visited India from the fourth century B.C to the tenth century A.D. and what they wrote about India?
- What were the views of the Christian missionaries about India?
- Describe the Imperialist school of Historiography and their approach towards the writing of Indian history.
- Describe the Nationalist school of Historiography. How was it different from the Imperialist approach?
- Define the' Marxist school of history and their approach to Indian history.
.gif)
Comments
Post a Comment