Author: Prof. M. G. S. Narayanan
Publication: ICHR Newsletter
Date: January-June 2002
URL: http://www.geocities.com/ifihhome/articles/mgs002.html
History is constantly rewritten
by historians in every country in every age. Since India became independent
in 1947, there was an urgent need to rewrite Indian history from the point
of view of independent India. Not only was there so much of accumulated
new source materials, both archaeological and literary, waiting to be processed
and interpreted, but the new citizens of the Republic of India had several
new questions to be addressed to the past.
As long as the British Government
kept India as their colony, they sponsored the writing and teaching of
Indian History with a colonial slant. The institutions which they created
for carrying on research were largely controlled by the foreigners and
their supporters. Therefore it is only natural that in course of time Indian
thinkers began to feel that the intellectual and cultural hegemony of the
colonial masters must be terminated, at least after half a century of political
independence.
This was not an easy job. Though
the visible hand of the foreign ruler had been removed, the invisible strings
of colonialism continued to operate in our universities and educational
network. Most of the historians of India in my generation were trained
in Western Universities and had been in the habit of looking up to them
for appreciation and rewards. A Eurocentric approach to history prevailed,
and in spite of the challenge that Nationalists offered to imperialist
ideas, they were often under the influence of Western concepts, knowing
or unknowingly.
It is good that our historians learnt
a lot about the craft from their European and American mentors, but they
also imbibed notions of Western superiority and Western ideas of 'Progress'
and 'Civilization'. There was a general tendency to condemn and denigrate
everything Indian, calling it Hindu and communal, without realizing the
fact that the label 'Hindu' did not represent a religion in the Semitic
or Western sense, but a whole civilization which possessed institutions
and outlook entirely different from those of the Western civilization.
Western standards, capitalist or
communist, were applied indiscriminately to Indian history for evaluating
the developments in all walks of life. This was evident in the way terms
like religion, state, class, empire, nation, law, justice, morality, etc.
were used in the analysis and interpretation of the past in India.
The Vedic Age, the period of the
composition of Vedic hymns in the land of the great rivers, was discussed
in the context of an imaginary "Aryan Invasion" for which there was no
trace in archaeology or literature. They postulated the existence of a
'Dravidian race' of inhabitants who were suppressed or driven out by the
so-called 'Aryan race' of invaders who established their control over the
native 'Dravidian race'. The story of Aryan-Dravidian dichotomy and racial
conflict, for substantiating which there was no record, was visualized
as the running thread connecting all events in India through the ages.
The work of Mahavira and Gautama Buddha in propagating their philosophy
had come to be treated as their attempt to establish new 'religions' different
from the Hindu 'religion'. These reformers were called 'founders of religion',
and when the number of their followers dwindled eventually due to various
factors, it was attributed to 'religious persecution' though there was
no such evidence. The history of different political units had been discussed
as though they were kingdoms established arbitrarily by some powerful tyrants
and functioning arbitrarily without reference to a framework of civilization.
European and West Asian parallels of religious persecution, conversion,
state religion, church-state conflicts etc. seem to have been at the back
of the historian's mind while approaching all Indian phenomena. The history
of India for the period after Harsha was often conceived as the history
of the Delhi Sultanate and the Mughal Empire. Society outside these was
neglected as if it was of no consequence. The history of the regions of
North East India and South India was often kept out of what came to be
regarded as the mainstream history of India. The process of development
of the Indian civilization, its formation and dissemination, and the stages
of its growth were not subject matter to be considered in history courses
taught in schools and colleges.
When such assumptions and attitudes
came to be questioned towards the close of the previous century, historians
opposed to change organized campaigns in the media against all attempts
to review and rewrite history. This was understandable. It was too late
for established writers to change their framework and parameters of references
and they feared that unsympathetic historians of another generation might
scrutinize their work too closely, find it wanting, and reject or modify
certain aspects of their contribution.
There was a similar fear in political
circles which enjoyed power for long and cherished their Westernised ways
of life. They were frustrated by the course of direction taken by democracy
in India in which the voice of the newly empowered masses increasingly
became assertive and decisive. Therefore the conservative politicians and
the conservative historians joined hands to resist any change in the writing
and teaching of Indian history.
Fortunately for us, there is a growing
number of historians in India, especially among the younger generation,
who would refuse to hold any philosophy or ideology of history, be it Imperialist
or Nationalist or Marxist, as the last word, the final truth. They are
prepared to learn about all new refinements in historical method, in India
or elsewhere, to judge everything independently, and to subject all preconceived
notions to scrutiny with an open mind, ready to accept anything that is
supported by reliable evidence. This new healthy trend has to be encouraged.
The Indian Council of Historical
Research is committed to support genuine research in all possible ways
without reference to any creed or ideology.
We are aware of the fact that certain
historians professing to project the Marxist ideology have been in the
habit of claiming infallibility and monopoly of wisdom, branding all other
historians as reactionary and communal and treating them as untouchables.
This intellectual fascism has to be discouraged. What they were enjoying
for some time was not a monopoly of wisdom but a monopoly of power in several
government bodies and universities. This has come to an end happily. Historical
research must now gather new momentum in this country so that our people
are eventually liberated from the hegemony of Eurocentric history and enabled
to develop their own independent Indian perspective.
