The Eurocentric Approach to Indian
History
in Colonial and Communist Writing :
the Case for Reinterpretation.
Professor M.G.S. Narayanan
Chairman, Indian Council for Historical Research
Twenty five years ago, in 1974‑75, when I made a study
of the British and European historical writing on Ancient India with special
reference to Vincent Smith in the School of Oriental and African Studies,
London University, I happened to realise at the same time the magnitude of
Western contribution in the field and the distortions due to the inherent
limitations of their attitude. They gave us our history and archaeology, they
recovered our Buddha, our Asoka and his edicts, our golden age of the Guptas
etc. etc.
They brought back into circulation
from oblivion our Ajanta and Ellora, our Mamallapuram and numerous dynasties,
capitals, inscriptions and literature. They also provided the basic framework
of history with Eurocentric approach which, it is sad to contemplate, has not
changed even after fifty years of Independence. The European prejudices are
deeply embedded in our understanding of Indian history, and it will take a long
time to eradicate these prejudices. A good beginning has been made recently,
but we have a long way to go. In this lecture I propose to highlight the
distortions to enable the new generations of historians to take stock of the
situation and proceed to undo the damage. So far we have only undertaken a few
repairs and alterations to the structure. I am now convinced about the need to
dismantle the structure itself and construct a new one in its place. This is
because the defects are not in the case of details but in the basic assumptions
with which they started, and the logic with which they proceeded. These
assumptions and logic were the outcome of the European intellectual milieu in
the 18th-19th centuries of the Christian era. They
supplied the motivations for the study of Indian history and culture in the
colonial era. The Communists have inherited the same legacy today.
When the distortions are eliminated,
the true significance of the work of European pioneers will be appreciated.
This will also enable us to do justice to our own traditions, and open before
us the path of the future.
The most important assumption was
that Indian history was just a collection of unrelated events, like a series of
migrations and conquests, owing their origin to external stimuli. It did not
reveal the organic growth of a nation or a civilization, marking the stages of
development or decline. The people are not an active force bringing about
changes like the renaissance and reformation, or producing a revolution at some
stage. It was a procession of exotic and colourful characters, autocratic kings
and emperors just having their way without encountering resistance from the
people.
In the circumstances there is no
development, and no meaning, in history. Political and historical upheavals are
not products of conditions within society, representing certain trends or
movements among the people. There was a long series of invasions Aryan, Saka,
Greeko‑Bactrian, Arabic, European etc. acting upon the unresponsive
masses. It was as though India was simply a geographical entity, providing an
empty stage for odd characters to appear and move about for some time before
their mysterious disappearance.
A related assumption was that there
was no meaningful periodisation of Indian history except on the basis of the
faith or nationality of the rulers. Thus they proposed a division into the
Hindu, Muslim and British periods which was changed later to conform more
exactly to the division of European history into three periods ancient,
medieval and modern demonstrating further the meaninglessness of the whole
exercise. In this context there was no sense in searching for the special
traits that set apart one period from another in terms of political forms or
economic trends or culture. With each new discovery in the field of archaeology
or ancient literature the absurdity of this periodisation became clearer and
clearer, but no attempt was made to abandon the frame.
The Greco‑Roman civilization
provided the yardstick for Western scholars to measure everything in the
history of India. The Christian era, which has no relevance for Indian history,
was employed in all discussions, ignoring the Kali era, the Saka era etc. which
were closely connected with the different epochs in India's history. There was
an unwritten law that nothing in India could be of greater antiquity than the
civilization of Greece.
The division of humanity in terms of
race was a European practice which gained new importance in the 18th‑19th
centuries against the background of the colonial enterprise. They were inclined
to treat non‑Europeans as inferior human beings and provide some sort of
legitimacy for their military, aggression against those peoples. In conformity with
this practice, European scholars attempted to read racial overtones in ancient
Indian texts from the Vedas onwards. Conflict between the Aryan and non-Aryan
races was found reflected in the Vedas and even the epic poem of Ramayana. This
prejudice was imported into the study of ancient Tamil Sangam literature also.
All this was done though there was no justification for such a treatment in the
texts themselves.
In Vedic literature, which is the
earliest in India, and the foundation and source of authority for all 'Hindu'
sacred books, there is not the slightest reference to a distant homeland or a
struggle with non‑Aryans for the possession of the Panchanada region
where the hymns were composed. If at all some sections of the Vedic people had
come from the other side of the Himalayas this is possible as there were no
political boundaries in pre‑historic times they must have been living
in the Punjab area for a sufficiently long period to identify that land with
their own religion and culture. They belonged to this land, but the European
mind could not accept the fact that Indians were the authors of such exalted
sentiments, and a whole theory of conquest was formulated to establish the
foreign origin of Indian faith and culture.
According to Western scholars, not
only did the Aryans come from outside but they also maintained exclusiveness in
every walk of life throughout the ages. Though the concept of racial
segregation did not appear in any later Indian text, it formed the central
theme in almost all historical studies on India. It is doubtful whether any
group except some of the Brahmin priests continued their hereditary occupation
unchanged in North‑India. The old Kshatriya dynasties seem to have
disappeared by the time of the Mauryan empire, and thereafter we find kings and
chieftains emerging from indigenous tribal groups in every part of India. There
are clear signs of upward mobility for people of nomadic or peasant origins,
moving right up to the status of ruling dynasties in different principalities.
The term Aryan is not employed as a race-marker, but as an indicator of
culture. This goes against the Western view that the rigidity of the caste
system prevented growth and development in India.
In many respects the caste system is
found to be capable of ensuring livelihood and security and certain rights to
individual members of each community, and giving them a certain amount of self
respect and pride except in the case of the lowest groups of outcastes. This is
a big achievement for ancient society in which slavery and insecurity are found
everywhere in the world outside India. The caste system provided checks and
balances and room for upward movement in a limited way to each member of
society. It gave a philosophy of life and a sense of duty and responsibility to
everybody while the hierarchical arrangement was only a matter of theory which
was often contradicted in practice. On the whole the unique institution of the
caste appears to have been responsible for the stability and survival of Indian
culture, providing insurance against the threat of revolutions, and as such it
was responsible for the extraordinary vitality and power of assimilation on the
part of society in India. Many of the aggressive intruders were transformed
into castes in India in due course.
There was no conflict between state
and church, no ground for religious fanaticism and inhuman cruelty sponsored by
sectarian creeds, no revolution resulting from extreme forms of oppression,
throughout the history of India. As monarchy was regulated by the concept of
Dharma and political authority was circumscribed by the rules and conventions
laid down in Dharmasastras, the growth of autocracy in the European sense was
ruled out as long as the Indian social system was alive. These were some of the
special characteristics of Indian society, which distinguished it from the
European model in historical times. These differences could not be understood
and appreciated by the Western scholars for whom the European model was the
standard model to be followed everywhere.
While all pre‑historic and
ancient civilizations like those in the Nile Valley, the Euphrates‑Tigris
valley and the Yangtsikiang valley perished or changed beyond recognition, the
civilization that flourished in the Indo‑Gangetic valley had a continuous
existence for more than three millennia. The deities, beliefs and languages,
and even the oldest literature enshrined in the Vedic hymns have survived in
recognizable form among the people of India. This durability and flexibility which
produced a highly complex society with composite culture, must have been at
least partly the contribution of the much hated caste system in its early
phases. The same system lost its creative role and became stagnant and
authoritarian and even destructive when the country was brought under colonial
rule. All social and cultural institutions degenerated when society lost its
freedom and initiative.
The European understanding of the
caste system, which has influenced our present views, had been based on the
observation of its decadent condition after it was torn out of the original
context and became an instrument of oppression and social injustice. What is
true of the present can not be transferred to the past. The historical
evaluation of the caste system should be based on the performance during the
period when it was functioning in a healthy way as the binding factor in the
traditional society of India.
It was no ordinary military invasion
that India encountered in the 10th century; several tribal groups
including Afghans, Pathans, Turks and Mongols united by the bond of aggressive
militant Islam were out to conquer the world and destroy all pagan idolatrous
cultures. These people intoxicated with military victory and iconoclastic zeal
could not understand the sophistication of 'Hindu' society and culture. In
spite of this, the invaders were civilized and refined to a large extent by the
impact of India on them. Even militant Islam was transformed into liberal Islam
in India in course of some centuries so that it has become one of the building
bricks for composite Indian culture.
Western scholars judged Hinduism on
the basis of its decadent form and it is a pity that Indian scholars have been
endorsing this verdict even after the Hindu renaissance under the leadership of
Vivekananda, Mahatma Gandhi and others in the 20th century.
Historical judgment in such matters deserves to be reconsidered in the light of
contemporary evidence. The Western view point which emphasized the negative
aspects and suppressed the positive aspects must be re‑examined today.
Instead of doing so the Marxist historians are attempting to uphold the same
imperialist views and to give them legitimacy with the use of theoretical
jargon which has lost its relevance this is the reason why there must be a
vigorous effort to apply strictly scientific methods to review and re‑evaluate
the chronological frame work, periodisation and contents of Indian history from
the beginning to the present day. The Eurocentric approach has to be replaced
by an Indocentric approach and the past is to be used properly for facing the
challenge of modern times.
21
November 2001
© Prof. M. G. S. Narayanan