Fifty
years after Independence, our knowledge of early Indian society stands
doubtless enlarged. Could you give us an assessment of where our
knowledge of early Indian society stands today? What have been the real
breakthroughs in this field of study?
There are
educational institutions where the history of India as was known half a
century ago is still current and where a different kind of history
remains unfamiliar. But there are some university departments which are
at the forefront of research and which have witnessed a paradigm shift.
This has not entered every university syllabus nor the popular
perception of history. Nevertheless its impact is apparent in the fact
that there is a general awareness that there have been radical changes
in the interpretation of early Indian history.
The
paradigm shift takes various forms. History is no longer a recital of
information on events and dates. It is the analysis of the evidence
relating to the past in an effort to understand the past. This is a
complicated process in the study of early history since the evidence is
both limited and of diverse kinds.
This has
led to the periodisation of Hindu, Muslim and British - or its
equivalent of Ancient, Medieval and Modern - being gradually eroded
through studies that show continuities from one to the other or changes
within one. Therefore the line of demarcation has to be made not on the
basis of the religion of dynasties, but on more fundamental social
changes, and these do not necessarily coincide with invasions, conquests
and dynastic changes.
Early
Indian society cannot be described as characterised by Hinduism as there
are other factors which are more important, such as the evolution of
caste, the utilisation of resources by a variety of social groups,
authority systems and the interface between rural and urban areas. These
mould the form of the public expression of religion, and history is
essentially concerned with forms of public expression. Besides, what we
today call Hinduism was not invariably the dominant religion in every
area. There were, for instance, long periods of time when Buddhism was
more prevalent in certain regions. The 'Golden Age' of the so-called
Hindu period is now questioned, given these more realistic aspects of
life which provide a different picture of early times.
So where
does the focus lie now? It lies in locating distinctive social forms and
in examining the transitions which lead to a change in social forms.
These are what might be called historical processes.
For
example, there is a transition from hunting and gathering and
pastoralism to settled agriculture and there are a variety of agrarian
economies. Juxtaposed to agrarian activity there is frequently an
exchange of goods and trade, and this too takes various forms - barter,
the use of money and other commercial transactions. The counterpart to
these are various forms of social organisation developing from
kin-related connections to a broader network of people performing social
functions. This is particularly so in the history of the evolution of
administrative institutions. Such changes can be seen among groups
within a single society or across a number of societies, and are of
course demonstrated in the different norms and customs of castes.
Whereas previously the study of caste was largely for information, we
now try and relate this information to a broader social context and try
and understand the historical function of particular castes.
These are
not linear changes which occur uniformly all over the sub-continent.
They occur at different points of time in different situations. It is,
however, possible to see a particular form which dominates and provides
a context to the others.
For
example, if commerce is central to a region, as in the case of the Indus
cities, it involves studying the items exchanged and their production,
transportation technology and the routes involved, the nature of the
markets, the evolution of urban centres and the authority which controls
the trade at various points. Discussions on economy require knowledge of
technology. There is, for instance, a debate on whether the people of
the Indo-Iranian borderlands introduced new technologies in the second
millennium B.C. in the form of horses, chariots and possibly iron, which
assisted in the spread of the Indo-Aryan language and the evolving of
new societies in the north-west, or the even more intense debate on the
role of iron technology in the formation of states and the growth of
cities in the Ganges valley around 500 B.C.
The role
of religion in history has undergone a major re-orientation. It is still
regarded as important but as one among various social articulations.
Once religion moves from the purely personal and private to the public,
that is, once it becomes the expression of a social group which
identifies with it, then in historical terms it has to be seen as more
than just rituals and beliefs. Analyses of rituals and beliefs certainly
provide clues to what the religion is about, but its historical
influence is assessed in terms of who its propagators are, from where it
gets its support, how its followers are organised and what it provides
to the ordinary adherent. Thus the rise of Buddhism as a historical
event is a process linked to the evolution of states and urban centres,
which is one reason why it spread initially with the patronage of rulers
such as Ashoka Maurya, and subsequently - what might be called its
grassroots spread in the post-Mauryan period - is tied to the patronage
it received from artisans, traders and small-scale landowners. This is
attested in the hundreds of votive inscriptions at the major stupa sites
and monasteries, which, in turn, are located along trade routes and at
important commercial centres.
In
an article written nearly 25 years ago on the problems of historical
writing, you drew attention to the need for the application of an
"evolutionary analysis" in early Indian history. You wrote
that "If Indian historical writing wishes to take its place as part
of the social science tradition, it must come to terms with the
assumptions of this tradition (and evolution is one), or else it must
find its own way out of the jungle..." Has history as a discipline
found its place in the social science tradition in India?
The
inclusion of history as a social science has resulted from the changes
in the discipline of history and that has been a major contribution of
historians from the 1950s. It began with the seminal work of D.D.
Kosambi. The emphasis given by Marxism to the economy and to social
stratification is in itself an interdisciplinary process drawing on
other social sciences. This has been developed further in at least three
themes of research: the formation of states was once seen as resulting
from conquest or from class confrontation, but the work being done now
investigates the finer points of each of these, suggests other
indicators and demonstrates its complexity and its variants; the
relationship of political authority to control over wasteland and
cultivated land involves legal issues, property rights, water resources,
yields and assessments, rights and dues, as is evident from the study of
land grants made in the first millennium A.D.; religion as ideology is
now seen as an important part of social mobilisation, as for instance in
the confrontations of the Shaivas with the Buddhists and Jainas.
Given
these new dimensions, the inclusion of history as a social science has
enlarged the required reading for research on a particular subject and
this has resulted in greater specialisation and in-depth studies. The
over-arching historical generalisation is now beset with multiple
questions. Perhaps the narrowing of the focus has subtracted from the
historical sense or mood of a period, but effectively it also makes the
ultimate generalisation more valid. Let me add further that if history
has been enriched by its association with the social sciences, the
latter have also now had to take a more historical approach to their
investigations. For example, it is not acceptable now to use arbitrarily
historical data without reference to their context and time-frame.
Have
any new tools been developed for the understanding of ancient India that
have yielded interesting results? To what extent have developments in
archaeology, anthropology and linguistics broadened the concerns of
historical analysis?
The most
substantial contribution in terms of further evidence has been from
archaeology. Excavations in the last 50 years have revealed new
cultures, some even going back a few millennia, in parts of the
sub-continent that were thought to be uninhabited. There has been
therefore both a spatial and temporal filling out of gaps.
Archaeology
also shows up the irrelevance of present-day state boundaries. The Indus
civilisation spread down to Gujarat and northern Maharashtra and into
Punjab and the Doab. It becomes imperative therefore that Indian and
Pakistani archaeologists should be in constant contact and, if possible,
work together. It is quite absurd that we have to get our information on
what is being discovered across each border from European and American
sources.
The
juxtaposition of archaeological and literary sources raises another set
of questions. There are fanciful descriptions in the Mahabharata and the
Ramayana of the life lived by the ruling families in towns such as
Hastinapur and Ayodhya and other such places. But the excavated sites
associated with these places suggest an ordinary style of life, hardly
better than that of a prosperous village. Clearly there is much poetic
licence in the epic descriptions. Archaeology in some senses questions
what might be called the monopoly of the text.
Introducing
archaeological data into historical studies also forces historians to
think along inter-disciplinary lines. The decline of the Indus cities is
attributed to a range of causes, of which ecological change is among the
major ones. The evolution of towns in the Ganges valley in the mid-first
millennium B.C. has to do with techniques of forest clearance, rice
cultivation, agricultural technology, the transportation of goods and
other such features, to a far greater degree than political events.
Technology can be a factor of change in some situations and of stasis in
others.
Data from
archaeology makes, as it were, a direct input into history. Evidence
from linguistics is less direct but extremely important to the analysis
of texts, since it studies, among other things, the history of a
language and language-change. Vedic Sanskrit, which was once thought to
be a pure Indo-Aryan language, is now revealed as a mix of Indo-Aryan
and non-Aryan languages. This puts it into a different perspective for
the social historian who has to assess, on the basis of the linguistic
evidence, the degree to which various social groups speaking other
languages participated in the society reflected in the Vedic corpus.
This naturally raises the question of an admixture not just of languages
but of rituals, customs and institutions, and the need to explain how
and why certain languages or certain institutions, became prevalent.
Anthropology
does not provide data for early history, but does provide some
methodological assistance. The methods of analysing pre-modern societies
do help in asking questions from historical data, the answers to which
encourage a deeper investigation. The attempt is not to use an
anthropological model and apply it directly to historical data but to be
aware of the considerations and evaluations which go into the
investigation of a society by anthropologists and use these as the basis
for asking questions in relation to a historical society.
Anthropological work on state formation, some of it rooted in Marxist
analysis and some using other kinds of analyses, is one example of how
an awareness of anthropological work has attuned us to the categories
involved in state formation: proto-states, early states, mature states,
imperial systems, primary state-formation, secondary state-formation and
a variety of other aspects.
As for
tools of analysis, there is one major new tool and that is the computer
and it is being used for all kinds of historical studies.
A primary
use is as a data-base. A Japanese Sanskritist has put the critical
edition of both the Mahabharata and the Ramayana on computer and these
and other such data-bases are used regularly in the very impressive work
on Sanskrit from Kyoto and Tokyo. European and American scholars are
doing the same and many texts are now available on floppies. Another
Japanese scholar made a data-base of the Chola inscriptions and was able
to do an intensive analysis of administration using this source. One is
waiting for that dream period when the corpus of Indian inscriptions
will also be available on diskette. Having a data-base on diskette makes
it much easier to check the occurrence of words and phrases and thereby
facilitates making certain kinds of connections and analyses.
The
computer can also be used for linguistic analysis: either to prepare a
concordance of signs, as in the Indus script, or to separate periods of
composition in a text by demarcating the distribution of linguistic
styles, as has been done for the Arthasastra.
But let
me add hastily that the computer is a tool, it does not provide answers
on its own. It merely makes the search for certain kinds of information
easier and faster and this inevitably suggests fresh avenues of
investigation. Ultimately it is the scholar using the computer who has
to know the data, ask the appropriate questions and search for the
answers.
Today
Hindutva is attempting to recast our past. Could you discuss the impact
and implications of the Hindutva interpretation of history, and 'Indigenism',
which is perhaps Hindutva's diluted variant?
In a
sense, Indigenism is the other side of the coin of globalisation. In
terms of its application to history, it attempts to invent a
"tradition" and retain it as something essentially different
from other cultures and societies, and to build an ideology on such a
tradition. But it fails to provide a theory of historical explanation or
a method of historical analysis. It frequently incorporates 19th century
colonial historiography as part of its ideology, as for example, in
retaining the Hindu, Muslim and British periodisation together with the
colonial evaluation of the first two, and using this to try and negate
the significance of the second period. Another example is the insistence
on the Aryan roots of Indian civilisation, to such a degree that some
are now arguing, in complete opposition to the evidence, that the
Harappans were Vedic Aryans! This stems from a 19th century concern in
Europe for Aryan origins, and its utilisation in explaining the
beginnings of Indian history. This was essentially a political agenda as
has also been the appropriation of the theory by Hindutva ideologues.
There is a clinging in such circles, to the Aryan as a source of Indian
identity. Indigenism takes the form of arguing that the Aryans were
indigenous to India and spread from here to Europe, so that India can be
regarded as the cradle of European civilisation as well.
Because
Indigenism is not a theory of historical explanation, it is used as and
when required and quite arbitrarily to insist on history giving support
to the premises of Hindutva ideology. A case in point was the debate
over the Babri Masjid. The pretence at historicity was a new aspect of
Hindutva ideology and was used to gull the public. It therefore required
to be challenged by historians.
Indigenism
of this sort is intellectually and historiographically barren with no
nuances or subtleties of thought and interpretation. It hammers away at
a certain point of view which acts as a casual explanation for every
historical event irrespective of whether it is relevant or not -
characteristic of the use of history by totalitarian ideologies.
Could
you assess the classroom status of ancient Indian history? How is
history being taught in schools - how far are the results of modern
research being reflected in textbooks; have the distortions you have
been discussing also crept into them?
Barring a
few exceptions, early Indian history is still generally taught in many
schools as it was half-a-century ago. Out-of-date textbooks, sometimes
factually incorrect, written in a dull and plodding fashion, are used to
smother students with boring information, chunks of which they are made
to learn by heart and reproduce in examinations. There is little attempt
to convey the idea that history is a process of gaining an understanding
of the past and not a body of information to be memorised. No attempt is
made to integrate the different activities that went into the making of
the past, or to explain why there are differences in various parts of
the country and how they came about. Even the differences in the nature
of the societies of early times and of now are not discussed. The
continuity between periods of time and the transmutation of ideas and
institutions are absent. Distortions are sometimes not even noticed,
leave alone being corrected. The results of modern research are not
reflected because those authors of history textbooks who are not
historians seldom consult historians or their work. The writing and
prescribing of textbooks used to be a cottage industry; it has now
become a factory system. One has therefore to ask where the profits go
before the mess can be cleaned up.
School
teachers are frequently blamed for being badly trained, but the training
is not of their choosing. My own experience in workshops involving
school teachers is that they are eager to be up to date and to teach
history as it should be taught, but are discouraged by the syllabus,
often unintelligently formulated, and an examination system in which
learning by rote and using bazaar notes is at a premium.
There
isn't nearly enough attention given to setting right the way in which
school education functions, even though it is recognised that this is
the bedrock of each generation.
What
have been the problems encountered with the regionalisation of
historical studies that has been a feature of post-Independence
research?
At the
time of independence there was a feeling that the history of India was
dominated by the history of the Ganges valley and that south Indian
history, for example, tended to be neglected. This was largely true. The
colonial vision had been the perspective from the Ganges valley and
northern India. Added to this, the identity of each state was
strengthened by the creation of linguistic states. The impetus for
writing regional histories was encouraged by the growing middle class in
the States searching for its identity in the past of the region.
The
positive result of this was an intensive search for local sources on the
past. Archaeological excavation was undertaken with enthusiasm, surveys
of local monuments revealed structures ignored prior to this change,
inscriptions were discovered through a more careful screening of local
landscapes and settlements, and texts pertaining to regional circuits of
pilgrimage and administration, all added up to increasing the knowledge
about the region.
But the
weakness lay in either adhering too closely to the all-India
periodisation of Ancient, Medieval and Modern, which in some cases, such
as the States of the North-East, made little historical sense, or else
in moving too far away and losing the broader perspective for the
narrower regional history. We met with this problem as early as the
1960s when some of us wrote model textbooks for the NCERT (National
Council for Educational Research and Training) in which attempts were
made to keep in mind both the national and the regional perspectives.
But we frequently heard that our textbooks did not suit the local
schools since there was not enough of the history of the particular
State. This was also born out of a regional chauvinism where the local
elite was concerned that the regional history should focus on its
origins and rise to power. Yet regional history, when placed in
perspective, can usefully modulate the generalisation about historical
change on a national level.
A further
corrective which regional history can encourage, if it is not hijacked
for purposes of regional chauvinism, is to demonstrate that there is a
multiplicity of histories, even of early India, which have to be
co-related. There are variant perspectives on the same events and the
historian has to be aware of this variance, both in looking for evidence
and in interpreting it.
Which
is the future direction in which you would like to see our exploration
of the ancient past proceed? Which are the neglected areas?
Historical
writing has its own momentum, which draws from dominant groups seeking
to legitimise themselves by controlling the projection of the past. This
has been so from the remotest past for which we have written records and
will continue. One hopes, though, that this will be on the decline
through a greater awareness of the uses of history. Irrespective of
predictions about the "end of history" or the devaluing of
historical narrative as a subjective enterprise, I do believe that the
obsession with the past will continue and that historians will thrive.
In fact the greater the contentions, the more will there be a honing of
historical generalisations. I shall be interested to see what form the
new theories of historical explanation will take, since the survival of
history as a discipline depends as much on theoretical rigour as on
historical data.
(Professor
Thapar responded in writing to a questionnaire from Parvathi Menon.)