Decolonising the Past: Historical Writing in the Time of Sachin - and Beyond

Author(s): Romila Thapar

Reviewed work(s):
Source: Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 40, No. 14 (Apr. 2-8, 2005), pp. 1442-1448
Published by: Economic and Political Weekly
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4416433 .
Accessed: 03/10/2012 01:34
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Economic and Political Weekly is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Economic and Political Weekly.

http://www.jstor.org

Special

articles________

the Past
Decolonising
Historical

Writing

in

the

Time

of

Sachin

and

Beyond

The decades of the 1950s and 1960s were a watershed in the writing of history. Narratives
of the past continued to be written as they are to this day, and there continues to be a
valuable gathering of new evidence. But the more challenging trend has been to pursue
answers to questions that relate to why and how something happened rather than merely when
and where. Actions and events had multiple causes and the priorities among these have to be
justified by the evidence as well as by logical argument. There is also a need to integrate a
variety of facets in constructing a historical context. History was an explanation of what
happened in the past, an attempt to understandthe past, and of basing this understanding
on 'critical enquiry', incorporatedinto what is also called the 'historical method'.
Historical understandingalso has to be viewed as a 'process in time'.
ROMILATHAPAR

Must confess that I feel diffidentaboutgiving a memorial

lectureforSachinChaudhuri
becauseat thebackof my mind
I keephearinghis deep-throated
laughandhis voice, saying,
"So,you aregivinga lecturein my memory- let's see whatyou
have to say".WhatI have to say is to try and recall the early
1960s, in Delhi, a recollectionin which I rememberhim as
somethingof an intellectualpivot. The conversationsand concernsof thosewhoknewhim,wereimagingextraordinary
times,
full of intellectualexuberance,especiallyin whatcameto be the
social sciences or the humansciences as some of us preferto
call them. Looking back, I would like to comparethis to a
conjunctionof constellations,the point at which in ancient
astronomicalreckoningone 'yuga' or cycle endedand another
beganthrougha realigningof the constellations.Thedisciplines
withinthe humansciences, began conversingwith each other,
moving towardsnew definitions.And somehow Sachin was
unobtrusivelycentralto many such conversations.
Reflectiondoes not come easily to me, yet let me try. I did
not reallyknow Sachinin Bombay.As a studentin the 1950s
I was only brieflyin andoutof Bombay.I knewof himof course
as he was a close friendof my brother,Romeshand his wife
Rajandthey often spoke of him. I got to know him personally
when Romeshmoved to Delhi in 1961 and Sachinwould frequently stay with them when he visited Delhi. Romesh was
editingSeminar,but wrotea regularcolumnfor TheEconomic
Weekly.Theirfriendshipencapsulatedthe commitmentof two
editorsintroducingtwo new kinds of journalsto the reading
public.TheEconomicWeekly,althoughbroadlyconcernedwith
economic mattersincludedmuch else from other disciplines,
whereasSeminarfocused on a single theme each monthand
broughttogetherdiverseviews. Bothcarriedthoughtfulanalyses
with, if need be, a questioningof existing wisdom,writtenand
read by those who were seriouslyconcernedaboutthe world
aroundthem.Bothjournalswere broughtout on a shoe-string
budget with none of the hoopla that accompanies such
1442

publicationstoday.It mayhavebeensymbolicthatbothmenhad
theirbirthdayson January1, thoughon differentyears.
It was not easy to bringout suchjournals.People had to be
persuadedto write: some were indolent and could not meet
deadlines,others were hesitantabout giving their thoughtsa
written,publicform.ButSachinwaspersuasive,hismindreached
out to a rangeof humanactivityand he could connectideasin
a dynamicway, posing the necessaryquestionsto stimulatea
varietyof answers.He sought not only the establishednames
butalsothepost-independence
generationof youngintellectuals.
Growtheconomicsand the debateon a plannedeconomywere
majorissues as were concernsabout democraticfunctioning.
Discussions on these were central to Sachin's view of the
implicationsof development.TheinitiativewasbeguninBombay
Universityin the 1950s and was reflected in The Economic
Weekly,as also werethe views of economistsat Cambridgewho
were Sachin's personalfriends, among them Joan Robinson,
RichardGoodwinandMauriceDobb.In the 1960s some of this
activityshiftedto Delhi University,whichis whereI firstmet it.
Therefore,it wasa matterof greatdistresswhenTheEconomic
Weekly,widelyreadin the 1950sandearly1960s,hadtobe closed
downbecauseof financialproblems.Itwasthendecidedto collect
contributionstowardspublishingwhat was to be called the
Economic and Political Weekly. The title reflected a broader

betweeneconomics,politics
scoperecognisingtheinterrelationship
and variousotherdisciplines.
EPWcame to host discussionson emergentdisciplinesin the
social sciences.Like its predecessor,EPWtoo was a forumfor
economics, sociology, anthropology,geography,demography
andhistory,with a muchneededfocus on Indianproblemsand
peculiarities.Graduallythe interfacebetweenthese disciplines
in the late 1950s and early 1960s becamepartof the evolving
social sciences. History as a social science developeda new
orientationdifferentfromits earlierinclusionin Indology.The
colonial constructionof what was called Indology referred
Economic and Political Weekly

April 2, 2005

literally to all aspects of studies on India. But there was an

emphasis on history, languages, religion, artand archaeology and
anything that came to be associated with 'culture'.
As a consequence of history moving towards the social sciences
two parallel approaches emerged in historical research. One was
the growing recognition that the past had to be explained,
understood, reinterpretedon the basis of what was being called
'critical enquiry', and that such explanations could also help us
understandthe present in more focused ways than before. The
other approach was reluctant to include critical enquiry into
investigating the past. In this second approach earlier theories
were reincarnatedin order to justify the preconceptions of some
ideologies of the present, which drew on a continuation of
colonial notions about the Indian past.
I would like to dwell at greater length on the first of these
approaches,the crtitiqueof the second being implicit. The attempt
to understandthe past through new methods of analyses resulted
in a paradigm shift in the historical writing on early India. I have
limited the theme to early history since I have some familiarity
with it. But I also want to highlight another interest that Sachin
had and which is often overlooked - his search for the subtleties
in defining 'Indian culture'. I recall many sunny, winter afternoons in the garden in Delhi, when we chatted about 'culture'
as patternsof living, and particularlythose going back to the past.

Two Approaches to India's Past

Fifty years ago, at the time of independence, we had inherited
a history of the subcontinent which incorporatedtwo substantial
views of the past: the colonial and the nationalist. Both claimed
to be based on contemporary techniques of historical research.
The claim was reasonably correct to the extent that they were
primarily concerned with chronology and sequential narratives
about ruling powers. The initial colonial view going back to the
early 19th century was a departure from any earlier Indian
historical traditions and drew on European preconceptions of
Indian history.
It had three foundational arguments. The first was the
periodisation of Indian history, a periodisation that was to have
consequences not only for the writing of history but a major
political fallout effect in the 20th century. Indian history was
divided into the Hindu and the Muslim civilisation and the British
period, formulated by James Mill in The History of British India
written in the early 19th century. These labels were taken from
the religions of the ruling dynasties - Hindu and Muslim. The
divisions were endorsed by the assumption thatthe units of Indian
society were mutually hostile, monolithic and uniform religious
communities, primarily the Hindu and the Muslim. The Hindus
came to be called the majority community, and the Muslims and
others, were the minority communities, on the basis of their
numbers in the census returns. This periodisation projected an
obsession with an absence of historical change in India and
further, it presumed that religion superseded all other authority.
That we still cling to it or to its shadow almost two hundredyears
laterindicatesour willingness to deny historicalchange in our past.
The second assertion was thatthe precolonial political economy
conformed to the model of Oriental Despotism, which assumed
a static society characterised by an absence of private property
in land, despotic and oppressive rulers and therefore endemic
poverty. This pattern did not envisage any marked economic
change and was characteristic of backward societies.

structure,againunchangingthroughhistory.Thosethathadsome
admirationfor the Indianpast, such as Max Muellerand a few
otherOrientalists,derivedit largelyfrom whatthey saw as the
AryanimprintonIndiancivilisationbothas a raceanda language,
andcastewassaidto berootedinthesefoundations.Thedominant
languageof the civilisation was Sanskritand the paramount
This was seen as characteristic
religionwas Vedic Brahmanism.
of Aryancultureandtherewasa concernto identifyandsegregate
the Aryanfrom the non-Aryan.Aryanwas seen as superiorin
partbecauseof a supposedlink with Europe.
These preconceptionsgovernedroutinehistoryfocusing on
chronologyandthe narrativeof dynasties.Indianhistorians,by
and large continuedthis routine.Nevertheless,there was also
someconcernespeciallyamonghistoriansinfluencedby nationalist ideasaboutcertainof these preconceptions.Most accepted
the colonialperiodisation.Otherschangedthe nomenclatureto
ancient,medievalandmodern,borrowedfromEuropeandthought
to be more secular,althoughthe markersremainedthe same.
Thus, there was no effective change in periodisation.
The theory of OrientalDespotism was rejected.Curiously
however,therewas littleinterestin providingcarefullythoughtout alternativehypotheseson the Indianpoliticaleconomyand
society. Social historyin standardworks largelyreiteratedthe
descriptionof the four varnas,registeringlittle recognitionof
deviations,leave alone explainingthem. Althoughtherewere
exceptionspointingto otherways, these exceptionswere not at
the forefront.
Parallelto theabove- whathasbeendescribedas mainstream,
secularnationalism- werethetwo religiousnationalisms,Hindu
andMuslim.Theseweresystematisedintoideologiesof political
mobilisationin the early20thcentury.Forthemthe interestwas
less in researchingalternateparadigmsand morein seekingto
usehistorytolegitimisecurrentpoliticalideologyandmobilisation.
An exampleof this was the insistencethata religiousidentity
was the seminalidentityin the past and continuedto be so in
the present.This was a justificationfor separatenationstates
in contemporarytimes. These historicalviews were based on
the colonial interpretationsof Indianhistory which were reasitwere,to servethepoliticalintentionsof thepresent.
incarnated,
The pastis inevitablypartof the present.But the relationship
betweenthe two, which includescontinuitiesanddisjunctures,
becomesmoremeaningfulif thepastcanbe explainedandunderstood,withall its featuresbothagreeableanddisagreeable,rather
thanbeingusedarbitrarily
to validatetheagendasof thepresent.

Re-examining History: Early Trends

The need to examine historyin terms of a differentset of
parameterswas at this point a somewhatprematurethought
amongmainstreamhistorians.However,such parameterswere
being suggestedby otherwriting.The prehistoryof the social
sciencesas it were, hadbegunin discussionsaroundthe nature
of Indiansociety andthe cause of economicpoverty.Dadabhai
Naorojihad maintainedthatthe colonial economydrainedthe
wealthof Indiaandwas the sourceof Indianpoverty.Analysing
the colonial economy was the first step for those who either
supportedorcontestedthistheory.RajniPalmeDutt'sindictment
of colonialpolicy madea substantialcontributionto the debate.
The teasingout of the strandsof the caste structureand its
socialimplicationswasevidentin thewritingsof D P Mukherjee
andN K Bose who were unfreezingthe theoreticalpattern.By
The thirdaspect was the argumentthat society was divided describingthe groundreality of caste and underliningwhat
into castes- the fourvarnas- andthese formeda frozensocial differentiatedit fromthe normsset out in the dharma-shastras,
Economic and Political Weekly

April 2, 2005

1443

new research on caste was initiated. The point was not easily
taken by most historians. The normative view was implicit to
the then vision of Indian civilisation where caste tied to the
conventional reading of religion was seen as the enduring feature.
B R Ambedkar's writings on the history of the shudras and dalits
were not cited in studies of social history, nevertheless they had
an indirect impact. Caste was not merely a social hierarchy but
was inherently linked to issues of domination and subordination.
The interlinking of higher and lower through intermediate categories in the hierarchy prevented a confrontation between the
dominant and the subordinated.
Among the more influential colonial representations of the
world at thattime was its division into discrete civilisations. Each
was demarcatedterritoriallyand associated with a single language
and religion. The implicit counterpart to the civilised was the
presence of the non-civilised, the lesser breeds without the law.
The implications of this superiority had not been questioned at
the time. (I might add as an aside, that even now, although
questioned by many, nevertheless Arnold Toynbee's 26
civilisations have merely been overlaid by Samuel Huntington's
eight.) Colonial perception identified caste Hindus as the civilised
and the others less so and labelled some of the latteras primitive,
a label that persists at the popular level.
Cultural nationalism came to be formulated from colonial
notions of civilisation, much discussed by the Indian middleclass. Few attemptedto ascertainprecolonial definitions of culture
with its multiple variations. It was easier to stay with the colonial
reading. The powerful intellectual controversies of earlier times,
authored by brahmanas and non-brahmanas, tended to be projected as religious sectarian discourses by both colonial and
nationalist interpreters.That these earlier discussions had drawn
on dialectics incorporatingrational and logical reasoning and had
recordeddissent, was hardlyconceded and rarelyexplored. There
was a preference for viewing them as minor disagreements within
a centrally agreed philosophy. Early scientific knowledge was
described but its social implications were seldom part of a
historical discourse. Given the separation between history and
philosophy as disciplines it was not thought necessary to locate
ideas in a historical background. Cultural nationalism was confined to contoursdictated by colonial preconceptions. The current
claims to authentic, indigenous identities, unchanging and eternal, pose immense problems to historians. Identities are neither
timeless and unchanging, nor homogeneous, nor singular as
maintainedin the 19thcenturynotion ofcivilisation. Even concepts
of cultural nationalism have to be located in the historical circumstances that fashion them.
The questioning of existing theories about the past gradually
altered the criteria of analyses among historians and the asking
of new questions also widened the range of sources. This led
to some distancing from both the colonial and the nationalist
interpretationsof Indianhistory. Since knowledge is not chronosfree, it has to be related to a specific situation and time. This
is all the more so where a shift in paradigm is involved, where
the frame of reference is being realigned. In part this shift had
to do with questions related to the broader issues concerning the
Indian nation state in the 1950s. This was not an attempt at
imposing the present on the past, but at trying to understandthe
present by more insightful explanations of the past.
Emerging from a colonial situation, the initial question was
how the new nation was to be shaped. This requiredunderstanding the components of the nation and the form they had taken
in the past. A better understanding of this provided a prelude

growth,the establishingof a greaterdegree of social equality

thepotentialof a variegatedculturalheritage.
andcomprehending
These were issues that were being discussedin The Economic
Weeklyand the discussionswere to continuein the EPW.Inevitablythis also led to questioningthe view of historythathad
been constructedin the last two hundredyears, apartfrom
obtaininginformationaboutaspectsof thepastthathadnotbeen
researchedearlier.Thequestionswerenotlimitedto politicsand
theeconomybutextendedto social forms,culturalandreligious
expression and the formulationof identities and traditions.
the historyandphilosophyof historicalwriting
Historiography,
and seeing the historianas partof a historicalprocessbeganto
surfacein historicalwriting.This was to become a significant
aspectof historicalexploration.Earlierhistoricalwritingcame
to be re-assessedin the light of new kinds of evidence and of
theoriesexplainingthe past.
In the questioningof existing explanationsthe validity of
periodisinghistoryas Hindu,Muslimand Britishwas increasingly doubted.It positedtwo thousandyearsof a goldenage for
the first,eighthundredyearsof despotictyrannyfor the second,
anda supposedmodernisation
underthe British.Suchdivisions
setasidetherelevanceof significantchangeswithintheseperiods.
Thatany such age can be describedas consistentlygloriousor
of an age
tyrannicalwas questionedas also the characterisation
merelyby thebehaviourof rulersor by theirreligion.Thedoubt
was encouragedwhen historybecamemorethanjust the study
of dynasties,andalso fromthe realisationthatcommunitiesand
religionsare not monolithic,but are segmentedand segments
had theirown varyingrelationshipswith each other.
Dialogue with Other Disciplines

Alternatenotionsof periodisationwere in parta reactionto

the openingup of a dialoguebetweenhistoryand otherdisciplines, in ways that were differentfrom earlier attemptsat
introducingdiverse facets of the past. Conventionalhistory
juxtaposedthe successionof dynasties- one moregloriousthan
the next- witheconomichistory,social historyandthe history
of religionandthe arts.Thesewereall includedwithinthe same
chronologicalbracketsbutweresegregated.However,byrelating
themmoreclosely to each otherandto a historicalcontextthey
formeda networkof interconnectedfeaturesand gave greater
depthto historicalargument.The interfacebetweenthe pastand
thepresentencouragedthenotionof exploringsomethemeseven
in otherdisciplinesthroughlookingat theirhistoricalpast.Some
familiaritywith earlierhistoricalexperiencecould provideinsights into contemporaryphenomena.This also introducedthe
idea of comparativehistory.The intentionwas not to applythe
patternsof othersocietiesto Indiabut to use the informationin
acomparative
mannertoaskfurtherquestionsof one'sownsociety.
I wouldlike to considersome examplesof the kindof history
that emergedfrom these dialogues.Discussionon these went
throughtwo phases. Initiallyhistorywas opened up to interdisciplinaryperspectivesand to new analyticalmethodsin the
1950sand1960s.Consequently
extensiveexplanations
of the past
followed.Some were basedon hithertounknownevidencebut
moregenerallythey arosefrom new enquiries.To pinpointthe
cameto be establishedis
precisetimewhentheseinterpretations
difficultsince it is an ongoingprocess.I shall thereforealso be
touchingon morerecentworkthathas followedthe initialparadigmshift,referringwherepossibleto theearlierandlaterphases.
Theconceptof thenationhadrunintoconfusionwiththetwoto currentconcerns.These includeddiscussionson economic nationtheory.The clarificationdid not lie in takingit backto
1444

Economicand PoliticalWeekly April 2, 2005

earliertimesbutin differentiating
betweennationandstate,with
the statebeing the primaryentity in early times. The statehad
earlierbeenassociatedwith a patriarchalsociety whereasin the
theoriesof state-formationin the 1960s variousotherfeatures
were given priority,rangingfrom environmentto the natureof
politicalcontrol.A centrallyadministeredkingdomhad been
assumedto be the basis of all states in the past. The break-up
of largekingdomsinto smallerones was equatedwith political
declineandreadas a fragmentation
of a polity accompaniedby
an absenceof consolidatedpower.Butthiswas notinvariablyso.
The likelihoodof variationin patternsof powergraduallyled
to thedemarcation
betweenformsof politicalorganisation.
Clanbasedsocietieswithchiefs, generallyagro-pastoral,
arethought
by some historiansas being priorto the existence of a state,
althoughnot all would agree. Kingdomsdemonstratedgreater
complexityreflectingmoreclearlythe emergenceof the state.
The changehas been seen as seminalto the societiesdescribed
in the Vedas,the Mahabharata
andthe Ramayana,andthe early
Buddhistcanon.Thesestudieswill hopefullyshiftthe obsessive
discussionontheoriginandidentityof 'theAryans'andtheAryan
foundationsof Indiancivilisationto broaderquestionssuch as
thosebeingcurrentlyconsideredon the natureof social change,
on the interfacebetweenmultiplecultures,and on mechanisms
of legitimisingpower ; all questionsgermaneto enquiriesinto
the earlyIndianpast.Historicalanalysesare of coursecomplicatedby the fact thatthese variantformshavecoexistedas they
still do andtheircomplexitiesarereflectedin historicalsources.
Whenthe structureof the state began to be discussedit led
to a focus on the typologyof statesystems.How a statecomes
intoexistenceatdifferenttimeshasnow becomea focusedstudy
in which the state is not somethingdistinctfrom society. The
natureof the formationof states suggestedvariablesthatwere
differentfromearlierto latertimes.The Mauryanstatewas not
identicalwiththatof theGuptas.Thediscussionon variedforms
hadimplicationsforthedefinitionof empireas well, as is evident
in the study of imperialadministrations.
Thus it can be asked
whetherthe Mauryanempirewas a highly centralisedbureaucraticsystemas most of us had arguedin ourearlierwritingor
can it be seen as a morediversifiedsystemas some of us began
arguingin our laterwritings.The tensionbetweencontrolfrom
the centreandassertionof local autonomyhas been a recurring
featureand is now being commentedupon.The regularuse of
the term'empire'for all kingdomshas come in for questioning
with kingdombeing differentiatedfrom empire.Religion was
an unlikelyprimaryfactorin the initialemergenceof the state
whichrequiredmoreutilitarianresources.But in the weldingof
segmentsinto empire,as in the policies of Ashokaand Akbar,
therewas recourseto certainfacets of religion.
Inthecolonialview thevillagewastheeconomicunitof Indian
societyandtownsreceivedless attention.Thetrendtowardswhat
wereto becomeurbancentresof thehistoricalperiodin theGanga
plaindatesto aboutthesixthcenturyBC. The presenceof towns
becomesgraduallymoremarkedin subsequentcenturies.Cities
werelinkedto statesystems,notjustas capitalsbutalsoas centres
for the exchangeof goods. The recognitionof urbansites on
the groundalso led to broaderdefinitionsof urbanisation.As
a processit was investigatedin termsof the environmentand
resourcesof its location,its demographyand its potentialas a
centreforexchange.Thiswas partiallyinfluencedby thefocused
researchon Harappancities both in tracingtheiremergenceas
urbancentresand the causes of their decline.
The ideologicalconfrontationbetweenthe 'gana-sanghas'theoligarchiesorchiefdoms,andthe 'rajyas'- kingdoms,earlier
Economic and Political Weekly

April 2, 2005

referredto in passing,is now elicitinggreaterinterest.The texts

presentdivergentviews on social ethics, as for example, on
'ahimsa'/non-violence,in the Pali Buddhist canon and the
BhagavadGita. Argumentsand counter-arguments
amongthe
intellectualsof those times were an intrinsicpartof the urban
experience. Earlier studies noted that orthodox views were
challengedby the heterodox,whom the brahmanasreferredto
as the 'nastika'and the 'pashanda';and the latterused similar
termsfor the former.Relatingthese ideasto a historicalcontext
hadonly a smallbeginningin historicalstudies,the trendbeing
to treatthem non-historically.
Exchangein varyingforms,frombarterto commerce,forwhich
thereis a spurtof evidencefromthe post-Mauryan
periodprovided an additionaleconomic dimension.Numismaticsor the
studyof coins was notlimitedto honingthechronologyof rulers
but introducedthe preliminariesof money and marketsat exchange centres.Closeness to other parts of Asia was known
throughoverlandroutes.Maritimeconnectionshavenow come
to the forefront,underliningfurtherculturaland intellectual
cross-currents.The dialogue between Indianastronomersand
thoseof Alexandriain theearlycenturiesAD, was butone aspect
of this. More recentlyevidence of what seems to have been
bilingualismin Greekand Prakritand probably,Sanskrit,sugin themanycultures
gestsa needto re-examinethecross-currents
of the north-western
areas.The role of commercein a rangeof
Asianeconomieswasoncelimitedto thelistingof archaeological
andtextualevidence.Nowthequestionsrelateto thecomplexities
of commercialarrangements.
TheorbitranfromTunisto Canton
in the period priorto Europeanexpansion.Half-seriouscomments are being made on globalisationbefore globalisation.
Serious observationquestions the validity of discrete, selfsufficientcivilisations.
Theories of Explaining the Past
Inthe 1960sandin manypartsof theworld,historicalresearch
hadbecomeanattemptto explainthepast.Consequentlytheories
of explanationcameinforintensediscussion.Theseincorporated
commentarieson the writingof Karl Marx, Max Weber,the
Frenchsociologistsand historiansof the AnnalesSchool, and
more recentlyon Michel Foucault.The 'Otherness'of India,
sometimesprojectedas the absenceof featuresleading up to
capitalism,canbe seenforexample,in KarlMarx'sconstruction
of theAsiaticModeof Productionandin MaxWeber'sprojection
of the religion of India. Their explanationswere not always
applicableto Indianhistoryin a literalsense, nevertheless,even
in rejectingthese,questionswereraisedthatledto exploringnew
themes,as did their methodsof analyses.
of Indiansocietyweredebated,particularly
those
Explanations
drawingonMarxistthought.Theexplanationswerenotdefinitive
andpermanentalthoughthe fervourof the discussionsuggested
thatthey mightbe so. They introducedthe historianto aspects
of the past that had earlier seemed closed and broughtthe
peripheralinto the mainstreamin a meaningfulway.
The centralityof social and economichistorywas evidentin
all these theories.Methodsof analysisinfluencedby historical
materialismwere adaptedby some but with the caveatthatthe
Indiandata might suggest variantpatterns.The work of D D
Kosambiwas a paradigmshift and whetheror not one agrees
with his generalisations,his writingswere impressivelywiderangingand catalytic.He was able, authoritatively,to too
open o
wide scholarlydiscussionwhatwas oftenregardedas theclosed
preserveof Indologists.
1445

Marxisthistoricalwriting introducedthe idea of modes of is being replacedby seeing these lists as incorporatingvaried
productionwhichfurtheralteredperiodisation.Marx'snotionof social groups.Ritualis inherentlyan act of worshipbut when
an Asiatic Mode of Productionwas set aside. However, the encrustedwith social meaningit could also become a way of
possibilityof a feudal mode of productionand the debateon legitimisingpowerandstatus.The discrepanciesbetweenstatethetransitionto capitalismcapturedhistoricalinterest.Thenotion ments in narrativesourcesand the regulationsof the dharmaof feudalismhadinitiallydrawnon Europeanparallelsbut now shastras,pointedupthefactthatthe latterwereindeednormative
the discussionwas of the more extensive Marxistmodel. Sig- textsanddid not necessarilydescribeactualsocietyas hadbeen
nificantly,the critiquingof the feudal mode for Indiawas also assumedearlier.Nor were claims to opulenceand grandeurto
initiatedby Marxisthistoriansandwhenjoinedby othersbecame be takenliterallywithoutothersupportingevidence.The point
an even more vigorousdebate.
was broughthome more visibly throughexcavationsof simple
The argumentwas based on changesin land relationsin the mud and mud-brickstructuresat places believed to be those
latterhalfof thefirstmillenniumAD. Thetransitionto feudalism mentionedin the Mahabharata.
Epic poetry is more often the
lay in the system of grantingland or villages, primarilyto capturingof an illusion ratherthan the mirroringof reality.
The supposedlyimmobile characterof caste gave way to
brahmanas,to temples, to Buddhistmonasteriesand to a few
who had servedthe state. Since the grantingof land becamea realisingthattherewere degreesof caste mobility.The sociofocal pointof the politicaleconomy,it broughtabouta tangible logical theoryof sanskritisation
- thatlower castes sometimes
in
relations.
This
a
change agrarian
change played significant soughtupwardmobilityby imitatingthe moresof uppercastes
role particularlyafteraboutthe eighth-ninthcenturiesAD. The - was appliedto certainhistoricalsituationsbut it hadits limidiscussion for and against the feudal mode opened up new tations.It was more appropriateto assertionsof statusamong
andkshatriyaswhoweresometimesrecruitedfrom
perceptionsaboutthe state,the economyand society, religious thebrahmanas
activitiesand otherpotentialareasof investigation,as well as lessercastes.Ritualspecialistsof variouskindscouldend up as
other theoriesof explanation.
templepriestswhen cult shrinesevolved into temples.Politics
Grantsof land to religious beneficiariesled predictablyto was an open arenaandclaimsto kshatriyaidentitiesareamong
innovationsin their activities and beliefs. They established themoreambiguous.Theprocesswasnotalwaysoneof osmosis.
institutionsandbecamepowerfulpropertyholders.Inscriptions Imitatinglifestyles can be the cause of some friction if not
recordingthese grantsare a telling exampleof how a historical confrontation.
recordis used only minimallyuntil a new set of questionsare
Thesere-orientations
in the studyof earlyIndianhistorywere
asked.The inscriptionshadbeen readsince the 19thcenturybut anticipated
asaconsequenceof interdisciplinary
trends,of theories
largelyfor dataon chronologyandon dynasties.Onlyin the last of explanationandof methodologicalchange.The laterthemes
50 yearsdidtheybeginto beexaminedin-depthfordataonagrarian emergedfromthese discussionsalthoughsome also touchconrelationsand for assessing elite patronageto religiousgroups. temporaryconcerns.
Somereligiouscultsbecamea networkof supportforparticular For instance,genderstudieshave not beenjust the accumudynasties,a processthatwas morevisible at the local level. The lationof moredataon the historyof women but garneringthe
yadavasfor instance,were both devotees and patronsof the views and activitiesof women and observinghow these conemergingcult of Vitthala,and the geographicaldistributionof ditioned society. Particularsocial forms became patternsof
the cult couldalso be seen as the areaof supportfor the patron. controloverwomen,andresistanceto theseis significantto social
Religiousinstitutionssuch as the 'vihara'andthe 'matha',have history.Earlier,popularbeliefheldthatGargiaskingphilosophibeenstudiedas agenciesof intervention,oftenin associationwith calquestions,ortheofficialrecordingof thedonationsof Ashoka's
therulingpowers,quiteapartfromtheirfosteringformalreligions. queen,Karuvaki,were proofof womengenerallybeing held in
Sifting the activities covered by the all-inclusive label of respect.But when such referenceswere placed alongsidethe
'religion',andattemptingto unraveltheirsocial functionshelps evidence of a subordinatestatus, the assessmentrequiredreto clarifythe linksbetweensocial roles andreligiousbeliefs.At consideration.
Historicallywomenwereas centralto thecreation
the same time popularreligious movements,some known to of communitiesand identitiesas were men.
contradictor deviatefrom the orthodox,occupieda prominent The mutationimplied in the phrase,fromjana to jati, from
placeon the historicalcanvas.The contoursof popularreligions clan to caste, suggestednew modalitiesin the historyof social
- the Bhaktiand Shaktasects in particularand laterthe gurus change.Forexample,it was
perhapspossibleto tracetheorigins
and pirs - are being mappedthroughfinding out who their of certainjatis to non-castegroupssuch as forestdwellers.The
followerswereandtheirpatrons,as well as throughthe manner 'chief'familiesaspiredto becomekshatriyasandotherclansmen
in whichtheyeitherdistancedthemselvesfromoraccommodated were relegatedto being shudrapeasantsand
providinglabour.
conventionalreligiousteachings.Such intersectionsare of his- A vignette of this process is given in the Harshacharitaof
toricalinterest,particularly
inthecurrentambiencewhenpolitical Banabhatta,
a seventhcenturybiographyof thekingHarsha.The
groupsaremusclingin andclaimingto be defendingthis or that mutationrequiredan alterationin the immediateeconomy,
religion.Theinteractionbetweenreligioussectsandsocialgroups often convertingforest into fields, and an acceptanceby an
areoftenlost in therigiditiesof formalreligion.Therelationship erstwhilerelativelymore egalitarian
society of the hierarchies
betweenthe worshipperandhis deity in the bhaktitraditionhas essentialto caste.
been comparedto thatof the peasantand his feudal lord.This
Descriptionsof the nishada,bhil andshabaraoverlapat times
remainsa continuingargumentbutthediscussionit hasprovoked with those of the rakshasas/demons.
One wonderswhetherthe
enablesusto knowmoreabouttheintricaciesof bothrelationships. rakshasaswere figures of
fantasy as was thoughtearlier,or
Anthropologicalstudies used in a comparativemannerhave whethersome at least representa demonisingof the culturally
pointedto furtherdirectionsin social history.Thusthe analysis alien as is being thoughtnow. The initial systematicstudy of
of kinshipconnections is helpingto tracediversegenealogical collecting referencesto the chandalaneeds now to be related
patternsin the lengthy ancestrallists of the Kurus and the to delineatingalternatesocial forms, to whateverdegree the
Pandavasin the Mahabharata.
The earlierpresumeduniformity referencesallow.Seeingthechangeasa historicalprocessinvolves
1446

Economic and Political Weekly

April 2, 2005

of suchgroupsto themaking Palaking Ramapala.Wherecourtpoetspursuedliterarystyle at

theneedto integratethecontribution
of Indianhistory,a contributionstill waiting for recognition. the expenseof veracity,rhetorichas to be separatedfromfact.
Thetextsthathavesurvivedfromtheearlyperiodaregenerally
those
of elite groups.Therearehardlyany writtensourcesfrom
Shifts in Understanding
thosemarginalised
by mainstream
society- women,dalits,forest
SubbaRao's work in the late 1950s suggestedconnections dwellers,lower castes. This realisationhas led to a re-reading
betweengeographicalregions, the environmentand historical of textsin searchof even obliquereferencesto the perspectives
was
perspectives.Thesewerecausalfactorsin historyandsometimes of suchgroups.Inearlierhistoricalstudiescreativeliterature
becameproblematic.Awarenessof theenvironmentreflectedon used largelyonly as a source of information.In recent times
historicalcausation.The rangeincludedthe silting up of deltas literarytexts are beginningto be used as articulationsof time,
as observedby ancientGreeknavigatorsrequiringtherelocation place andpeople,visualisinga glimpseof a historicalmoment.
of ports;changingrivercoursesleadingto migrationsandshifting Resortto themoreinfluential'literaryturn'as it has beencalled,
settlements,as happenedwith the late H-rappansettlementson is apparentin some of the writingof the subalternhistorians,
the Hakrariver;or deforestationchangingthe landscape,the but this is restrictedso far to analysesof moderntimes.
Thedecadesof the 1950sand60s thereforewerea watershedin
economy,and much more.
The interestin regionalhistorygrew by degrees,assistedto the writingof history.Narrativesof the past continuedto be
some extentby the creationof linguisticstatesfrom the 1950s writtenas theyareto thisday,andtherecontinuesto be a valuable
boundariesof theerstwhileprov- gatheringof new evidence.But the morechallengingtrendhas
supersedingthemorearbitrary
inces.Thenewstatesweretreatedas sub-nationalterritorial
units. been to pursueanswersto questionsthatrelateto why andhow
Texts in the regionallanguagesprovideabundantinformation, somethinghappenedratherthanmerelywhenandwhere.Actions
some fromearly periodsas in south Indiaand more generally and events had multiplecauses and the prioritiesamongthese
with a markedincreaseafteraboutAD 1000.The standpointof haveto bejustifiedby the evidenceas well as logical argument.
subcontinentalhistory,conventionallyviewed from the Ganga Thereis alsotheneedto integratea varietyof facetsin constructing
plain, has had to change with the emergenceof regionalper- a historicalcontext- thenatureof thestateandtheeconomy;the
spectives. For example,when kingdomswere no longer seen patternof caste andgenderrelationships;religioussects, icons,
invariablyas centralisedbureaucratic
systemsthenthe regionas monumentsand institutionsas forms of social expression;the
of
a
had
more
defined
role.
part largerpolities
impactof theenvironment;andmanymorestill awaitingexploRegionalhistoriesformpatternsthatsometimesvaryandthe ration.Historywas an explanationof whathappenedin the past,
variationshavea historicalbase. Forexample,the modelof the anattemptto understand
thepast,andof basingthisunderstanding
four varnaswas not the caste patternin the entiresubcontinent on whatwas recognisedas the necessarycriticalenquiry,incoraswasmaintained
earlier.Whydidbrahmanas
andvellalapeasants poratedintowhatis also calledthehistoricalmethod.The undergive shapeto the historyof Tamil Naduwhereaskhatritraders standingis notconfinedto just a momentin time,to a particular
dominatedthe Punjab?Differencesare not just diversitiesin context, since it has also to be viewed as a process in time.
regionalstyles.Theyareexpressionsof multipleculturalnorms
that cut across monolithic,uniformidentities.This requiresa
History Today
reconsideration
of whatconstitutesthe identitiesthathavecome
to us from the past.
This was not somethingthatwe were taughtas students,but
This also requiresthe historianto juxtapose a diversityof it is an essentialpartof whatwe teachour studentstoday.It is
sources from artifactsto texts. It was thought that whereas a trainingthatbeginswitha carefulassessmentof the reliability
artifacts,being materialand tangible,can be examinedfrom of the evidence and an insistence that all possible evidence
multiple perspectives,this was not possible with texts. But pertainingto a subjectbe used. The analysis of the evidence
graduallytexts are also being examinedfrom variousperspec- revolvesaroundissues of causalityand objectivityand centres
tives. Indologicalstudies,andespeciallyphilology,wereexten- the argumenton logic. An initialhypothesisis testedat various
sive investigationsintothe structureof the languageswhichalso stagesas the researchproceeds.Wherenecessaryit is modified
helped to date the texts. These studies are now being further or changed.The generalisationthat emergesis an explanation
facilitatedby computeranalysesof the literarystyles of a text, of thethemebeingresearchedandhopefullyprovidesan underthe constructingof concordancesof words/signs,and locating standingof a segmentof the past.Even wherethe explanation
the occurrencesof words, althoughsuch studies are sporadic. requiresa smallleap of the imagination,the leap takesoff from
Individualwordshave a historyand theirmeaningmay change criticalenquiry.Thisis thehistorian'scontribution
to kpowledge
ina changedhistoricalcontext.Thewordpashanda,initiallyused but it is also an essential process in humansciences. And in
inthesenseof anydoctrine,wasin latercenturies,usedforheresy. makingthiscontribution
thehistorianis awarethatotherevidence
However,a differentkindof investigationof placingthe text may surface,freshgeneralisationsmay emergeand knowledge
in its contexthas widenedthe possible rangeof meaningsand be furtheradvanced.But claim to an advancereceivesconsidintentions.We know thattexts cannotbe takenliterally.Their erationonly if it fulfilstherequirements
of thehistoricalmethod.
authors,audiencesand agendas have to be scrutinised.Thus
My attemptat an overviewof the directionstakenby recent
intentionand agencybecomesignificantand have to be differ- interpretations
of early Indianhistorywould be incompleteif I
entiatedfor each text. For example, inscriptionsare often the didnotcommentontherecentcontroversyoverhistoricalwriting.
officialversionissuedby theruler.Theyhaveto bedistinguished The commentis necessarybecausean attemptis being made
fromnarratives
claiminghistoricity,the 'vamshavalis',of which mainlythroughthe propagationof what some are now calling
the Rajatarangini - the history of Kashmir, written in the 12th the Hindutvaview of history,to dismantlethe
historyand the
centuryby Kalhanais the finest example.These againare dif- historicalmethodthatI havebeendiscussing.Ituseshistoryas the
ferentfrom the 'charitas'- the biographiesof rulers,such as, bedrockof legitimisinga particularidentityanda particular
selfthe Ramacharitanm
of SandhyakaraNandin,a biographyof the perceptionprojectedas nationalism.In the claimto propagating
Economicand PoliticalWeekly April 2, 2005

1447

an indigenousview of historyit effectively endorsesthe 19th

centurycolonial framesof interpretingIndianhistory- in fact
preciselythe kind of historythat has now been critiquedand
sloughedoff.
Itinsists,forexample,onexclusive'Aryan'foundations
of Indian
civilisation.This is takenbackto the Harappacultureby stating
thatthecreatorsof theInduscitieswere'Aryans'.Itis takenforward
by assertingthatHindusareAryansand the ancientperiodwas
the age of Hindu glory broughtto an abruptend by Muslim
invasions.The medievalperiodis characterisedby continuous
Muslimconquestswith their counterpartof continuousHindu
resistance.Colonialpreconceptionsarere-incaratedin thisview
to theperiodisation
of IndianhistoryintoHindu,
throughreturning
Muslimand British;throughthe theoryof OrientalDespotism
whichis soughtto be appliedto governancein theMuslimperiod;
and throughthe assertionthat Indian society throughoutthe
Hinduperiodconformedto the idealsof caste societyas laidout
in the 'varnashramadharma'
andthereforedidnotneedto change.
Thereis a refusalto concede social and economicchange,nor
the interfacebetweenmany cultureswith variedrelationships,
nor the pluralitiesof Hindu,Muslim and other societies.
Obviouslythere is an element of ideology - conscious or
subconscious- in the explorationof knowledge,but this is not
thesameas theinductionof arbitrary
preconceptionsintoknowledge:andthemoreso if theyareintendedforpoliticalmobilisation
andsectarianambitions.A differentiation
hasto be madebetween
a historybased on the criticalenquirythat governs historical
method,anda historyputtogetherfrompreferredpreconceptions.

If the history of the subcontinent is to be written as a sensitive

and thoughtful understanding of the past, the analyses have to
draw on critical enquiry. Should this be abandoned, then that
which is labelled as 'history' becomes a free-for-all, accompanied
by public abuse and physical force (as we witnessed in recent
years), in order to silence those that still respect the procedures
inherent in advancing knowledge. Such silence is not just a
censoring of history but a censoring of knowledge. These assaults
will continue to be possible until critical enquiry is given the
centrality that it should have in our academic and intellectual
discourse.
And this takes me back to Sachin who would have been
immensely curious about some of the interconnections thatI have
referred to, as also stimulated by the potentialities that they
suggest - as indeed are those of us who are involved in these
explorations. He would also have been enraged by the attempts
to censor knowledge. I would like to conclude with his words
in his last editorial:
Concessions to unreason and illegitimate demands however
powerfully engineered by sectional interests are a dire threatto
the very existence of the nationand to civilised government.The
spectreof nakedreactionandtriumphantunreasonmustbe fought
to the finish. B1
[This is an expanded version of the first Sachin ChaudhuriMemorial
Lecture,organisedby the SameekshaTrust,thatwas deliveredby the author
on March 15, 2005 in Mumbai. Amit Bhaduriand Neeladri Bhattacharya
commented on an earlier draft of this lecture and their comments, much
appreciated,have helped clarify some of what this article tries to say.]

MADRAS SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS

(Behind Govt. Data Centre), Gandhi Mandapam Road, Chennai 600 025
Applicationshave been invited by Anna Universityfor M.Sc. Economics Degree Programmefor the Academic Year 2005-2006.
The 2-year (4 Semester) Programmeis offered by ANNA UNIVERSITY
in collaborationwith MadrasSchool of Economics (MSE),
Chennai 600 025. Students will have to undergo course work in economic theory and quantitativetechniques and in atleast one
of the followingareas of specialisation1. CapitalMarketsand FinancialServices 2. IndustrialEconomics and Organisations 3. Environmentaland Energy Economics
4. InternationalEconomics, and work on a projectin the final semester.
Refer to MSE website www.mse.ac.in for details about the institute.Hostel accommodationis availablefor both men and women
at the MSE.
This M.Sc. course in Economics is recognized as an advanced course by academic circles and the market.Campus recruitment
takes place in the 4th semester by various leading business and other institutions.
Eligibilityfor Admission: Qualifications:(1) B.Sc. (Mathematics/Statistics/Computer
B.E.;B.C.A;B.B.M.
Science/Physics/Chemistry)
or (2) B.A. (Economics)/B.Com./B.B.A.
subject to the conditionthat the candidates must have taken Mathematicsat the Plus Two
level. Refer to Anna Universitywebsite http://www.annauniv.edu/msc/adv_msc2005.htmfor details. Seven seats are reserved
for other state candidates.
Basis of Selection: An entrance examinationwillbe conducted.The syllabusfor the entranceexaminationis given in the annexure
in the applicationform. Admissionis solely based on the marks secured in the entrance examinationto be conducted. Minimum
entrance marks for admission is 30%. Top three rankerswill be awarded fellowshipof Rs. 2500/- p.m.
Application Procedure: In person: Applicationformfor EntranceExaminationand Admissioncan be had in person from21.03.2005
fromthe Director(Admissions),ExaminationCentre, Anna University,Chennai600 025 on payment DD
by
(dated not earlierthan
20.03.2005) in favourof the Director(Admissions),Anna University,Chennai600 025. The cost of applicationform and Entrance
Examinationfee is Rs. 600/- for General category and Rs. 300/- for SC/ST candidates.
By Post: Applicationforms can also be had by post on paymentby DD (dated not earlierthan 20.03.2005) in favourof the Director
(Admissions), Anna University, Chennai 600 025. The cost of form and exam fee for General Category is Rs. 625/- and for
SC/ST Rs. 325/- (which includes postal expenses).
LASTDATEFOR RECEIPTOF COMPLETED
APPLICATION
: 27.04.2005
DATEOF ENTRANCEEXAMINATION
: 29.05.2005
Complete details are available in the instructionsto candidates attached with the applicationform.
DIRECTOR

1448

Economic and Political Weekly

April 2, 2005