Rejected Indian Sense of Past; Its Reconsiderations
Rejected Indian Sense of Past; Its Reconsiderations
British Historian James Mill Classified Indian History into three Eras, namely Hindu, Muslim and British Imperialist stage in his British History of India. For the first time James Mill classified like above with some imperialistic designs. Due to this classification historically other two things one is; culturally divided divide and rule and communalization of History started. Even some scholars who dealt Historiography with a passion opines that this is also a kind of a part of Empires knowledge industry, though all the political systems and even Empires use to deserve their justification and Legitimisation1. Contemporary Empires used History and Historiography for this. Many of the notions and even debates and justified arguments also carried by the contemporary Historians Legitimised the Empire in a greater way. It is very common in every society which was prevailed in the various space and time of the human History. One of the very famous Indian scholar discusses Harsha Charita in the same manner and also examines the mutual justifying nexus between Harsha and Banabhatta. As scholar Shivavishwanathan points out that, European Imperial masters not only used army to conquer the far reach colonies but also used Cristianity, Science, Modern warfare and even History and Cartography. To sanction the Empire everybody needs all the tools which I already explained2.
James Mill Branded all phases with some politically motivated lables. Mill nomenclatured Hindu Era as Bramhanic, Medievel age as Muslim Era or the Age of Black, Barbaric one and juxt-oposed and showed a alternative to this after putforwarding a great Age or era as British Imperialistic Era or Blessed Era3; It was featured as Paxa-Britanica embedded with the structures like Whiteman’s burden and Civilisational lack. Their attitude was highly based on prosilitisation manner and made some clear cut distinction after comparing Indian society, culture civilization and even History in one hand and in other keeping the British counterpart. They made a argument that in earlier both phases India witnessed Barbarism, dominance, Hegemony and many things which doesnot allow so called political, social and even Democratic values, like Equality, Liberty, Human dignity and civil liberty and more. So they made a claim that, now we the masters with high sense of civilized mannerism and lifestyle replace the bad ageold and feudalistic sort of old Empire4. This was their argument behind the classification and taxonamy in an negative manner of Indian whole civilization and even including Indian sense of past. So they pointed Indians as Ahistorical, they were unaware of sense of past and said we the great Europeans are giving you History, due to your Ignorance5. We are also taught in the same manner, we began in our History text book as ,“India was Ahistorical” in its first chapter. Including History, the whole system of knowledge Industry in the form of Indology with its facets as Indo-phobia and Indo-Mania are the tools to govern, administer the conquered land like India6. They are justified their whole deeds including conquest as reluctant conquest, not very willfully made one7. History also, not for their sake, but because of our ignorance. It is because of Administrative purpose britishors started some initiation to study Indian culture, law, tradition, belief systems and all. Around the last half of the 19th century formally oriental study approaches and even departments, Manuscript study and all started. Thease all kind of things only ancilliary in nature, rather than real sense of exploration. The Exploration and Indological studies made by William Jones around in 1780’s also prejudiced and acted as two face-edged sword and formally it acted as ancilliary medium and supported British imperialism8. William Jone’s core idea of Indological studies was beautifully exposed by Orientalism debator Edward said, in his text Orientalism. He sights, William Jone’s Hymn of Saraswati and examins the real nature and purpose behind the study of Jones. William Jones, H.H. Wilson, Henry colbrooke, Charles Wilkins, Nathanial Halhead, and even Monier Williams studied a lot of Indian treatises, hold appreciation to Indian corpus because of their hidden agenda of Imperialism. They appreciated in one hand, in other they argued now India is not having any culture, civilization and glory in all the areas of human activities like literature, science, Maths, alchemy, architecture, cosmology, Music and even in philosophy but now we can feel absence. Due to this absentfull juncture and context we are here to replace the age old glory, this was their logic behind the argument. They made a manifesto that, we the great Empire will nurture whole India with our English paradigm. They rejected the presence of good Empire in India and projected their empire as good and said, it also replaces the old one. They also rejected Indian sense of past at that juncture. Britishor’s especially J.S. Mill did not find any kind of sense here due to their prejudices, rather than the real existence. J.S. Mill and even T.B. Macaulay after getting some sort of inspiration from Jeremy Bentham, the great Utilitarian scholar, followed and searched after keeping the French historian Edward Gibban’s Paradigm and his, “ The Rise and fall of Roman Empire as a Model. This particular model is only suits for France rather than Third World countries, Asia and including India.
Orientalist, Imperialist Historians and Scholar’s rejected Indian sense of Past due to very important following logics. One is; Indians are Ahistorical, did not had History, because they are not concentrated on that. second; Indians are more spiritual, so they didnot valued the history and inspite of that, Universe, creation, Brahma, Soul, rebirth and other kind of micro and minute things were discussed philosophically. They did not considered and forgranted History, its material content as serious. Third; Indians are civilisationaly lag behind, they are lack of civic sence. fourth; Indian society is not dynamic but stagnant, a Stagnant society never, ever produces History and various forms of Historical writings and method. So we rule you and we also present your History after proper writing. The whole arguments are crystalised and metophorised in this way and everywhere on globe the colonial knowledge Industry and History which is produced by them served colonial masters purpose rather than colonized.
Modern scholars, who are very busy with studies they also rejected the above hypothesis made by Imperialist’s and Indologist’s. Presently the scholars who are taking Decolonisation as a hard core debate they also rejecting after a great deal of exercises. First of all, Indians are also Materialistic people, Indians excel in Astronomy, Physics, Chemistry, Ayurveda, Alchemy, Maths and even things related to the material development of the society are the finest example in this. Spirituality and Materialism in India went on Juxtopposedly rather than absence of the any one of them. So in India Vatsayana produced Kamasutra, Kautilya with Arthashastra. None of the Ancient and contemporary geography or cultural region of the globe never-ever produced texts like this. If we consider and make an examine on culture and civilizations, then also every individual citizen of the world must recognize India as a civilization after acknowlidging its features with Harappa Valley, as the greatest civilization. Even the Ranke’an scholar will Durant in his discussion on world civilizations and even Marxian intellectual Samuel P. Huntington’s, Clash of civilizations mentions it in a greater way. And the argument as Indian society as stagnant also a false Hypothesies rather real one. Not even a single society on globe is static, change is only permanent rather.
What is sence of Past? How can one define the sense of History? Eminent Historian Romila Thapar in her work on Historiography defines sense of past like this9, “Sense of past is consciousness and sence on past events, that was considered as relevant by the society, sequencefully and systematically written in a form and that form must and should fulfill the demands of contemporary society”. If we apply the above definition, then Historical consiousness is the sense of past of a particular society and every society irrespective of space and time holds it. Second element is, a event should be very important social or political event, we have this element also. Every society has political and social event and they also consider it as great. Third thing is that must written in a chronological order, every society including Indians has this style, we never discuss Mouryans before the Guptas, some how we validate chronology. Fourth feature is, sense of past must be in a written form, that form must and should respect and meet the demand’s of contemporary society. So Greek Historian Herodotus wrote, History of Persian War in prose, Thucididos wrote History of pheloponnesian War in prose, Semihistorical works like Illiad and Odessy written as Epics. Because of the above differenciation, that is due to the current societies demand and that was fulfilled through certain form.
In India also a variety of scholars wrote in different forms, because of the fulfillment of contemporary society demand as forms. So Rgveda with a lot of historical depiction orally composed in the form oral rendition, Mahabharata and Ramayana in the form of Epics. But the early Medievel treatise Rajatarangini written in prose with a narrative tecqnique called Tarangini, Banabhatta’s Harshacharita in Charitha form with tecqnique called Shuka Kathana Vyakyana (Parrot rendering narration). So each and every form which flourished in India were in the form of metaphorical demand raised by the contemporary Indian society. But Imperialist’s and Indologist’s were peeped for the 17-18 century English style of writing in the form of Verse, but they did not find it, instead of they found verse and other forms. This particular Juncture made them as Indians are Ahistorical and portrayed as, they did not had the tradition of sense of past and Historical writing practices. But Indians were Historical this has clear sence of past.
We can examine this issue of sense of past of Indians, with taking very simple sets of logics. For e.g, the term Kagad for paper is not an Indian language term, but it has its origin in portugues language as Kagata’s. In Portugal and in Portuguese language there is a term for paper as Kagata, because Portugal had paper and even the material background of paper in early Medieval and Medievel time. That is their practice, but the Indian diverse regions practiced writing on Tada Patra (Palm Leaf) and Burza Patra (Boorza Leaf) and Olegari (Letter Leaf) these words were equated to ole, Tada, Boorza because of the availability of these materials around Indian rigion is the major reason as Linguist Noam Chomsky points out,” For the origination of words, it must and should posess material background and some social tools10. If we catch the basic assumption behind this, then we have argue like this”, As the terms and words gets meaning from the surrounded backgrounds, in the same manner the terms in India for history as Itihasam, Charitra and all.” Sanskrit language has terms like Itihasam, Charitra. Somehow one can equate those with Greek word, History. In the same time we have also many regional renditions to, equate History like ‘Oralalu’, in Tamil, Bhoreji in Assame and many more. Again in Tamil we have many connotations and diverse nomenclaturistic terms as ‘Ula’ and ‘Parani’ of Medievel times also sounds as History. In Sanskrit, the term Itihasam has unique etymolozical explanation like this, Iti-ha-Aasam, which means ‘it was like this’ , like this hapend; Another term charitra is from route ‘Char’, which means mooving. The other Sanskrit term like Purana, which carries semihistorical content, also means ‘old one’. Like the above instances of usage of various Marga and Desi (Vernacular) usages, it clearly denotes that India has a rich, diverse tradition of Historical tradition. Alternative name for Mahabharata itself is ‘Jayo Nama Itihasa (Jaya, the History). The other two regional variety as ‘Dingala’ in Rajastan, and ‘Pingala’ in Brij’ region language again sanctifies the notion of sense of past and the living example of the ageold rich, diverse and dynamic historical traditions of India.
Historians like R.C. Majumdar and even Romila Thapar gave their immense contribution to the re assessment of Indian sense of past after using proper arguments and logics. Apart from that Historians like V.S. Pathak, A.K. Narayanan, and British scholar F.E. Pergitor also did some of the great effort to retrieve the enigma as Ahistorism. Modern Historian Vinaylal, in his book ‘History of History’, test’s the sense of past in a great detail. F.E. Perguiter argues after putting the beautiful exerpt’s on the sense of past from the Epic Mahabharatha like this, in his Ancient Indian Historiographical Tradition”,
Yo Vidyachaturo vedantha
Sangopanishado dvijaha
Na chet puranam samvidya naiva syat vichakshanaha
Itihasa puranabhyam vedam samupa brahmayet
Bibetyalpa srutadvedo mamayam praharishyati.
An intelligent man is not only after reading philosophy and six branches of knowledge and even puranas. He must and should interprete and examine the Veda’s through History, then only we consider him as great otherwise Veda itself rejects him after branding him as little known fellow”11. Like this Mahabharata defines what History is.
Koutilya in his Arthashastra defined the notion of History in detailed way in the following manner,
Dharmartha Kama Mokshanam
Upadesha Samanvitham
Poorvavrittham Kathayuktam
Itihasam prachakshate
‘History is none other than mixture of human experiences in the areas like Religion, Economy, desire and salvation”12.
If we examine the Indian tradition, then we can find many words prevalent prior to the genesis of the term Itihasam, like ‘Gatha, Narashamsi in Vedic genre, Purana, Itivritta, Itihya, Akhyayika, Odaharana and all. These were not merely terms, but also signifies traditions prevailed in various Historical space and time. Shatapatha Bramhana, a Vedic text urges the narrators to render Vamshavali of the particular king on the occasion of performing Ashvamedha yaga. Koutilya, perhaps provided the status of Veda into Itihasa. Kannada poet Jinasena in his Nayacharita offen uses terms like Itivritta, Itihya, Amnaya and Charitra for equating the tradition as history. Especially if we trace the post Vedic society, we can find some History rendering class such as Sutas and Magadhas and Puranikas. These people were assigned the duty of preserving the oral Vamshavali kind of semi and fullpledged historical traditions of Ancient India. One of the very Important feature among five features of 18 Puranas is Vamshanucharita, that has content of particular genealogical History of every great kings and dynastics. In these traditions also History is beautifully crystalised. In a great extent, Vishnu Purana and Srilankan Epics such as Deepavamsha and Mahavamsha also carries History as content. So after examining the above logics and examples, I certainly opines that every society must and should contain historical tradition of it’s own. In the same while India and Indian society also had its own, which is related and existed on the basis of its self, rather than in the lines of European Modern Historiographical traditions.
Historians like R.C. Majumdar and the left Historian Romila Thapar made their point on Kalhanas Rajatarangini as the first mature expression of the India’s great variety of the Historical tradition13. This text also so integral. The term tarangini itself is a kind of Idiom, which means waves one after another, or the account is like one after another like wave. Here we can also witness the linear notion of time, on that the whole notion of Modern European historiography stands. One of the historiographer and thinker Vinaylal also commented on Rajatarangini as, it is very great Historical text than Machiavelli’s, The Prince14.
The notion of time always clinges with historical tradition and with historiography. Indian sense of past rejected due to its cyclical notion of time and this juxt-opposes and denies it. Indian time is cyclical than Linear. According to Imperialist’s and Indologist’s, the absence of sense of past is due to cyclical notion of time that mundanely repeats the events cyclically, and in cyclical notion there is no starting point and even ending point. Cristian theology, rested in Bible has linear concept of time and which supports and justifies their argument. But this argument also very wrong in its nature, although the presence of cyclical time. Indians have linear time inherited in it, e.g., In Bhagavata Purana Emperor Nraga rules over his domain about 84,000 years, this is the clear indication of Linear rested in cyclical. The Indian notion of Shaka systems like Vikrama, Shalivahana, Harsha and all, also holds the symbology of linear concept of time in Indian Subcontinent. Another very unique reference made by King Asoka, as his Kalinga expedition took place on his eighth regnal year as “Ashtavarshadiste” in his edicts and also tells about his conversion and beginning of procilitisation activities of Buddhism in his fourteenth major Rock Edicts15. These all are above instances clearly marks the Indian Linear notion of time and even Indian sense of past.
India has only Social History, than political one; this is also an a prejudice. Each and every segment of Human activitiy is very prominent. So why we have to forgrant only political? This political history paradigm is basically Greekish one, that also reflects the contemporary condition and demand of the society of Greece. Instead, Rgvedic society demanded social issues and current conditions so, a lot of material inundated in Rgveda. So the content and form always very choosy and relative, every society has its own. So in Rgveda we can find purusha sukta and the history of social stratification as social history. In the samewhile in Shatapatha Bramana, a king known as Videgamathava went upto river Sadaneera or modern Gandak in the modern U.P-Bihar border, makes his territory expansion16. So we have both politiy and society. Sometimes this is clearly visible. Some time some sort of overlapping also existed.
So above my logics and arguments clearly states that Indians had a diverse sense of past, rather than a monolithic. But the Imperialist writing on Indian sense of past was totally distorted and misinterpreted. Now scholars consider it with a great deal. So it is the time for us to forget the historical distortion as ‘Indians are Ahistorical’.
References
1.James Mill,The History of British India, Baldwin-Cradock and
Joy,London,1818.
2.Shiva Vishvanathan ,The Hindu Magzine, July 2013.
3.James Mill,The History of British India, Baldwin-Cradock and
Joy,London,1818.
4.Romila Thapar,Ancient Indian Social History: Some Interpretations,
Orient Longman,New Delhi, 1978, 2010
5. Romila Thapar ,A History of India, Vol.1, Penguin Books,
London / Delhi, 1966
6.Ronald Inden, Imagining India, Basil Blackwell Oxford,London, 1990
7.Seeley John Robert Sir,The Expansion of England,Mac
Millan,London,1883.
8.Edward Said,Orientalism,Penguin,London,2003.
9. Romila Thapar,Ancient Indian Social History: Some Interpretations,
Orient Longman,New Delhi, 1978, 2010
10.Noam Chomsky, Aspects of the Theory of Syntax,The MIT
11.F.E. Pargiter,Ancient Indian Historical Tradition,Oxford, London,1922.
12.V.S.Pathak, Ancient Historians of India; a study in historical
biographies, Asia Publishing House, Bombay,1966
13. R.C. Majumdar,An Advanced History of India, Macmillan, London,
1946.
14.Vinay Lal,History of History- Politics and Scholarship in Modern
India,Oxford, London, 2005.
of Chicago Press,Chicago,1958.
16.D D Kosambi, An Introduction to the Study of Indian History,
Popular, Mumbai, 2009.
Pradeep Kumar Shetty K.
Cellphone: 9964022581
ಕಾಮೆಂಟ್ಗಳು
ಕಾಮೆಂಟ್ ಪೋಸ್ಟ್ ಮಾಡಿ