Ideology & D Interpretation of Early Indian History
Ideology & D Interpretation of Early Indian History
Ideology & D Interpretation of Early Indian History
INTRODUCTION
Sumtyms said that the interpretation of ancient periods of history has little
historiographical interest as they refer to tyms too distant for an ideological concern to
have too much meaning for a contemporary society.
This view wudnt however b valid for interpretation of early Indian history, where both
colonial xperience & nationalism of recent centuries influenced d study.
The interpretation of Indian history frm 18th century onwrds relates closely to the
world view of European,, & particularly British historians who provided d base. The
theories frequently reflected political n ideological interests of Europe.
Investigation into Indias past began wid d wrk of Indologists such as Jones,
Colebrook etc who were employed by the East India Co.. they were also interested in
philology n used d opportunity to expertise in this area. The study of Sanskrit not only
gave shape to discipline of comparative philology bt becam a source material for
reconstruction of ancient Indian history.
Vedic Sanskrit was particularly of grt importance & was uded xtensively in d
reconstruction of both Indian n Eropean past as d linguistic connection b/w d 2 had
alrdy been established.
Inevitably those who were sympathetic to Indian culture tended to romanticize the
ancient Indian history. The traditional Indian historical writing wid its emphasis on
historical biographies n chronicles were largely ignored.
Developed in 19th century. D word arya,which occurred in both Iranian Avestan &
vedic Sanskrit texts was given a racial connotation, as referring to d race of Aryans.
They were described as physically different from d indigenous population who spoke
indo-european language.
They invaded northern India in d 2nd millennium BC, conquered indigenous pple n
established the vedic Aryan culture which subsequently becam d foundation of Indian
culture.
Max Muller introduced the word 'Arya' into the English and European usage as
applying to a racial and linguistic group when propounding the Aryan Racial theory.
However, In Vedic Literature, the word Arya is nowhere defined in connection with
either race or language. Instead it refered to: gentleman, good-natured, righteous
person, noble-man, and is often used like 'Sir' or 'Shree' before the name of a person
like Aryaputra, Aryakanya, etc. this wud be 1 who spoke Sanskrit & observed caste
regulations.
The racial connotation may hav been due to counterposing of Arya wid Dasa in Rig
Veda where dasa is decribed as physically dissimilar to the arya; the racial identity
being preserved by forbidding inter-caste marriage b/w dem.
The term varna, associalted wid color & occurring as a technical term referring to the
caste organization of the society also supported ART.
CRITQUES
The validity of AIT is seriously challenged and it stands totally untenable. The most
weird aspect of the AIT is that it has its origin not in any Indian records (no where in
any of the ancient Indian scriptures or epics or Puranas, etc. is there any mention of
this AIT), but in European politics and German nationalism of 19th century.
AIT has no support either in Indian literature, tradition, science, or not even in any of
the south Indian (Dravidians, inhabitants of south India, who were supposed to be the
victims of the so-called Aryan invasion) literature and tradition. So a product of
European politics of the 19th century was forced on Indian history only to serve the
imperialist policy of British colonialists to divide the Indian society on ethnic and
religious lines in order to continue their reign on the one hand and accentuate the
religious aims of Christian missionaries on the other.
It is a known fact that most of the original proponents of AIT were not historians or
archaeologists but administrative professionals they were in fact had been paid by the
East India Company to further its colonial aims.
Further, if it is assumed that the so-called Aryans invaded the townships in the
Harappa valley and destroyed its habitants and their civilization, there r no evidences
dat they occupied their cities. The excavations of these sites indicate that the
townships were abandoned.
Further, if the Harappan civilization had a Dravidian origin, who were allegedly
pushed down to the south by Aryans, Aryan-Dravidian divide in the respective
literatures and historical traditions hav been found. The North and South have never
been known to be culturally hostile to each other. Prior to the descent of British on
Indian scene, there was a continuous interaction and cultural exchange between the
two regions.
ORIENTAL DESPOTISM
The genesis of this theory goes back to the Greco-Persian antagonism, wid references
in Greek writings to d despotic govt. of d Persians.
To this was added d vision of luxuries of d oriental courts, built partly on on d luxury
of trade wid d east n partly on fantacy of wrld of oriental crts as described in d
accounts of visitors to these regions lyk Megasthenes @ d Mauryan crt.
Owing to d continuance of empires in Asia in d 18th century, the focus was now
shifted frm d doings of d despotic to d despotic govt. the central ques. Was seen as dat
of pvt. Property in land, & d state ownership of land. The ambassadors & visitors to
mughal india such as Roe maintained dat there was an absence of the right to pvt.
Property in land.
Even Marx, who was famous for for his dialectical movement characterized Asia wid
a absence of change, & wrked d theory into his model for Asian society-Asiatic mode
of Production; where d absence of pvt property was central to this model.
The structure was a pyramid, wid king @ d apex, & self-sufficient village
communities @ base. The wealth of the oriental crts came frm collecting surplus frm
d cultivation. Cntrl over peasant communities was maintained by the state monopoly
of the irrigation system.
The unchanging nature of the society is central to the theory of Oriental Despotism.
The span of Indian history was seen as one long stretch of empire wid an occasion
change of dynasty.
CRITIQUE
Supplemntary
It has long been maintained that the Indians were an a-historical pple, since there was
no recognizable historical writing from the Indian tradition similar to dat from Greece
& China. This was partly bcoz the Indian historical tradition (itihasa purana) was not
easily recognizable to those familiar with Greek historical writing. Another reason
may hav been the inability of modern scholars to perceive n concede the awareness of
change.
The early historical tradition is now receiving the attention of historians and is being
analyzed in terms of its ideological content. For instance, the unit of history is not the
empire but janapada, territory settled by tribe, which later evolves to a state.
Political power was a relatively open area in early Indian society & the social
antecedents of the founders of dynasties were rarely questioned, as long as they
compiled wid d procedures necessary for legitimizing political authority.
In the Buddhist tradition the unit of history was the Sangha or Buddhist church and d
monastic chronicles formed d core of d tradition.
Cyclic time and the change implicit in d movement of the cycle was d cosmological
reflection of the consciousness of change. The records of the later part of the 1st
millennium BC includes detail events relating to political authority. This new
development in the tradition coincides wid actual historical chnge, characterized by
small kingdoms generally conforming to the geographically nucear regions. These
were based on a decentralized administration n economic structure and d emergence
of the devotional religion- the bhakti movement which thru its appeal to large cross-
section social grps n use of regional language strengthened regional focus.
The perspective of the ancient Indian historical tradition wen seen in juxtaposition wid the
more recent analysis of early Indian history can suggest the ideological concerns of the pre-
colonial period. These myt provide to d historian of early india a clearer vision of the
priorities of the Indian past than have been provided by the polemics of more recent times.