The Penguin History of Early India

by Romila Thapar

  The picture, in addition to its interest as a contemporary record of unusual political relations between India and Persia, is one of the highest value as a landmark in the history of art. It not only fixes the date of some of the most important paintings at Ajanta and so establishes a standard by which the date of others can be judged, but also suggests the possibility that the Ajanta school of pictorial art may have been derived from Persia and ultimately from Greece.

  Early History of India (Oxford, 1924), p. 442

  Indian historians reacted sharply to such statements. Attempts were made to prove either that India had not derived any part of its culture from Greece or else that the culture of India paralleled that of Greece, manifesting all the qualities that were present in the latter. That every civilization emerges out of interactions with others, but nevertheless creates its own miracle, was not yet recognized by either European or Indian historians. The notion of the osmosis of cultures shaping histories was still to come.

  While European historians of the early twentieth century attempted to discover patterns of change and evolution, Indian history was seldom approached from this perspective. It was treated as a series of islands in time, each named after a particular dynasty. This is not to suggest that studies on other aspects were ignored, but these tended not to be integrated into the history of a period. Valuable and interesting information was collected on various aspects of Indian society and religious practices, but this information rarely found its way into standard historical works, or even into the histories of religion, and tended more often to be indexed as studies pertaining to particular tribes, castes and communities. An Indologist with a more open approach to Indian culture, interested in the new influences then entering the study of ancient Indian history, was A. L. Basham. His awareness is evident from his sensitive and historically rigorous handling of Indian cultural history in his classic work, The Wonder That Was India. This was also an early attempt at extending the parameters of history.

  Emphasis on dynastic history endorsed the division of Indian history into three major periods, Hindu, Muslim and British, with a later change of nomenclature to Ancient, Medieval, and Modern, which is still prevalent as a periodization. Since the time brackets remained the same, the earlier division prevailed despite the change of nomenclature. The Ancient period begins with the Indus civilization, which replaced what was termed ‘the Aryan period’ in earlier histories, and concludes with the Turkish raids on northern India in the eleventh and twelfth centuries and the establishing of the Delhi Sultanate in the thirteenth century AD. This inaugurates the Medieval period, lasting until the coming of the British in the mid-eighteenth century. The equation of Ancient with Hindu, and Medieval with Muslim, was based on the fact that many dynasties of the first period were Hindu while those of the second were Muslim. The Muslim period was imbued with a distinctive character that distinguished it from the earlier period by emphasizing the separateness of Muslim and Hindu culture at all levels. Justification for this thesis was sought in the writings of the theologians and court chroniclers of Muslim rulers. At the best of times, court interests are distant from those of the populace and all the more so when the chronicler or the historian focused on eulogizing the ruler as an exemplary patron of his religion. Court chronicles the world over have to be decoded and cannot be taken as factual accounts. In any case, the political trends dominant in early twentieth-century India justified the separate religious nationalisms by referring to (among other things) the Hindu and Muslim periodization, endorsed by many Indian and non-Indian historians. Only a few questioned its validity. But such a periodization of Indian history is misleading in its emphasis, apart from being questionable in its assumptions. The religious affiliation of rulers was not the pre-eminent motivating factor of change in Indian history, as these categories would imply: it was one among a number of factors.

  Indian historians initially tended to follow the pattern established by European historians and wrote largely on dynastic history. But, with the growing presence of a nationalist ideology, the nationalist interpretation of Indian history gained importance. Seminal to this approach was the Indian liberal tradition of the early nineteenth century – as in the writings of Rammohun Roy – and the questioning of negative features attributed to the Indian past, as in the theory of Oriental Despotism. History, as a major component in the construction of national identity and culture, became a subject of contestation between the anti-colonial nationalists and those supporting colonial views, although some colonial views such as those of the Orientalists found a sympathetic echo in nationalist writing. Nationalism seeks legitimacy from the past and history therefore becomes a sensitive subject. Even if nationalist history did not introduce a new explanation of the Indian past, it was nevertheless a powerful voice in the debate on the past.

  The Seeding of Communal History

  Indian nationalist history challenged aspects of colonial historiography and thereby helped to release historical writing from the imprint of the more negative colonial theories about the Indian past. But by endorsing other theories that provided positive images of the Indian past some historical interpretations emerged even more deeply embedded in these colonial theories. Instead of being reassessed they became foundational to yet other kinds of histories claiming to be nationalist. ‘Nationalist’ histories of this latter kind are defined by a single category, for instance, that of religion. Muslim and Hindu nationalisms drew from anti-colonial, nationalist ideology for legitimacy, but converted their interests into a nationalism that confined itself to the articulation of a single concern – interpreting history in terms of monolithic religious identities. These ideologies have their roots in the nationalist phase of historical writing but are generally more effective as sources for political mobilization following the success of anti-colonial nationalism. These tendencies, because their appeal is to emotion and to faith, can threaten the intellectual foundations of historical discourse. This has happened with attempts to write both Muslim and Hindu nationalist histories (not to mention others at regional levels). Their refusal to countenance other approaches to explaining the past results in contentious views of history.

  Identity in pre-colonial India was dependent on various features such as caste, occupation, language, sect, region and location. As late as the eighteenth century caste was often given primacy over religion, although caste and the religious sect could overlap. But in the colonial reconstruction of Indian society religion was given primacy, particularly as the imprint of identity. Colonial historians argued that, with the arrival of groups professing Islam, there was a confrontation between Hinduism and Islam which led to the crystallization of two communities, the Hindu and the Muslim. Social and political interaction was therefore perceived in terms of the two communities and this duality governed the interpretation of Indian history. Further, it was believed that the importance of caste segmentation of Hindu society was set aside and Muslim society was thought not to have caste identities. Both these propositions are now being questioned. The history of India of the second millennium AD is no longer seen in terms of the confrontation between two religious communities, and social identities drawn from caste, occupation, language and region are being recognized as equally important to these religious communities.

  Nevertheless, the influence of interpretations conditioned by what is called communal history, or history based on religious nationalisms, continues. This is different from anti-colonial nationalist history, despite an occasional overlap. Whereas the nationalist perspective was wide-angled and inclusive, that of communal historical writing is narrowed down to projecting the history of a particular community, identified by a monolithic religion being pre-eminent, and excludes the study of others. Muslim religious nationalism sees Indian history in terms of the role of the Muslim community vis-à-vis the Hindu, while Hindu religious nationalism projects the Hindu community as confronting the Muslim, despite the large percentage of the population regarding an identity in these
terms as ambiguous in the past. Communal history does not attempt to analyse the nature of communities and their changing history. Each community is seen as a homogeneous whole and defined as a uniform, monolithic, religious community functioning as a unit of history.

  Religious nationalism retains the colonial periodization of Indian history and the fundamental interpretation that India consists of the majority Hindu community and the minority Muslim community, with other lesser minority communities. Historical causes are explained as arising almost entirely from matters of religion, which are frequently assumed to be confrontational. For some, if the ‘Hindu’ period was an unblemished Golden Age, the ‘Muslim’ period was a Dark Age, and this imagery is reversed by those of the alternative persuasion. The justification for the two-nation theory that led to the partition of India in 1947 was facilitated by the belief that the Hindu and the Muslim communities have, from the start of their relationship in Indian history, constituted two distinct nations; therefore a Muslim and a Hindu nation-state in our time were historically inevitable.

  The ‘Hindu’ period having been described as a Golden Age, there is a hesitation to accept critical evaluations of events and people during this time. The normative texts are taken at face value and read as descriptions of the perfect harmonious society. It is stoutly maintained, for example, that pre-Islamic India was a tolerant society, and references to religious and social intolerance are dismissed as incorrect readings of the source or are ignored.

  Some of the limitations of nationalist history were also reflected in regional history when histories of regions were first written in the early twentieth century. The periodization of Hindu, Muslim and British was assumed to be universally applicable. The chronology of this application was far from uniform, with Muslim rule registering a start in the eighth century AD in some areas and a millennium later in others. Regional history developed partly as a reaction to projecting Indian history from the perspective of the Indo-Gangetic Plain, as was often the case in early writing. It was further encouraged by the attention given to local source material with the establishing of new states in the Indian Union after 1947, each anxious to claim its own history. The definition of a region in accordance with the boundaries of present-day states is self-defeating, since such boundaries are themselves the result of historical actions. It would be more appropriate for regional history to use regions as defined in the geography of India.

  Research on regional sources is increasing, some of which has modified the earlier perspective of subcontinental history. It also helps in analysing historical problems at greater depth. For instance, because the pattern of caste configurations varies from region to region, instead of searching for the fourfold castes everywhere it would be more helpful to investigate the variations. Similarly, the variant patterns in the environment, resources and economies of the regions can assist in defining aspects of regional history. A more recent trend, again borrowing from one of the concerns of nationalist history, is the introduction, in some instances, of the history of the currently dominant community as coinciding with the history of the region. This tends to warp the overall history of the region. Ideally, the importance of regional history is not only to provide more information about an area, but also to signify variations and similarities, so that generalizations about historical change at the larger level can be more precise.

  Marxist Histories and the Debates they Generated

  A paradigm shift in the understanding of historical change in India was introduced by Marxist interpretations that began as historical debates from the 1950s onwards. The historical writings of D. D. Kosambi, in particular, encapsulated this shift. An interest in social and economic history rather than dynastic history alone had been initiated and this was now intensified, calling for a different periodization drawing on social change. There was a questioning of Marx’s own model for India, contained in his Asiatic Mode of Production, and this was by and large set aside, although there were some historians and sociologists who thought that even if it was not applicable in its entirety it raised worthwhile questions. Its weakness was common to many nineteenth-century theories about Asia, in that early nineteenth-century sources for Asian history available to European scholars were very limited while the available sources had not been explored in any depth.

  Kosambi, in his Introduction to the Study of Indian History, moved away from dynastic history to describing what he perceived as the dynamics of economy and society in various phases of Indian history. He underlined the importance of what he called ‘living prehistory’ and cultural survivals that enable us to reconstruct archaeological and historical cultures with greater empathy. His familiarity with the Maharashtrian countryside gave him an insight into the readings of early texts, which led him to new perspectives of the ancient past. His essays in Myth and Reality were an even more innovative exploration of the social basis of ideological concepts, resulting in creative analyses of a range of themes from mother goddesses to microliths, pilgrimage routes and the Bhagavadgita. Kosambi’s intention was to indicate the stages through which he thought Indian society had moved, and the reasons for the change. There may be a debate today about the stages, a debate that has been influenced by other theories of social change, but it cannot be doubted that a pattern of change existed. There is an increasing range of explanations for this change, with some suggesting additional causal features.

  The critique of the Asiatic Mode of Production did not lead to the dismissal of Marxist analyses. Attempts were made to see whether other modes of production, such as the Slave Mode of Production or the Feudal Mode of Production, could be used to explain aspects of pre-modern Indian history. The maximum discussion and the most intensive debate was generated over the question of whether there was a Feudal Mode of Production or even feudalism in the Indian past. This opened up a number of new perspectives on the nature of the state, changing economies at different times and the interrelations between religions and social groups.

  Earlier comparisons with feudal Europe had tended to be based on rather impressionistic readings which did not provide an explanation of how such societies could have functioned in India. The first systematic analysis was that of Kosambi, who viewed the period as embodying a form of the Feudal Mode of Production, rather than being just a period of small states. Seminal to his discussion was his modification of the Marxist model – what he called feudalism from above and feudalism from below: that from above was where feudatories were directly subordinate to the ruler without the intervention of other intermediaries; and feudalism from below created a hierarchy of landowning intermediaries between the king and the peasant. The two phases have not generally been accepted, but the broad argument endorsing feudalism has been discussed. It was said that the existing land economy was restructured through the ruler giving substantial grants of land to religious beneficiaries, or to officers for their services. In time, the grant was accompanied by a transfer of fiscal and juridical rights from the ruler to the grantees, which converted the latter into landed intermediaries with extensive rights to exploit the labour of the peasant. Whether the form of exploitation was the equivalent of serfdom remains debatable. Charters that had earlier been read only for information on dynasties, kings and chronologies were now being analysed for social and economic data. Cultural and ideological dimensions of feudal society were also introduced into the discussion.

  Both the application and the critique of the feudal mode initially came from Marxists. The concept of Indian feudalism was discussed in a number of spirited controversies, eventually attracting both Marxists and non-Marxists. A lively debate was thus initiated on the decentralization of state power and the use of resources and labour, as well as on the religious expressions that arose at this time. Feudalism, as a historical process, is still debated among historians writing of this period, and draws on various models. The Marxist concept of the Feudal Mode of Production is the more familiar category as a starting point. It focuses on the distinct categori
es of landowners and peasants with family holdings, the relationship between the two being characterized by coercion or a threat of force by the former, who appropriate surplus from the latter and demand labour taxes of various kinds. There is however the problem that its genesis does not lie in the transition from slavery to serfdom, as in Marx’s sequence for Europe, since although there was slave labour in India, a Slave Mode of Production that some associated with Europe did not prevail and there is no unanimity regarding the prevalence of serfdom in India. The genesis of feudalism has to be sought in other changes.

  Some have preferred other models of feudalism, such as that which seeks to follow the more general description of medieval Europe with its society of fiefs and vassals, but with variations. This was not necessarily replicated in India, but approximations could provide fresh readings of a comparative kind. Thus many medieval societies functioned through coercing a subject peasantry, which was in turn controlled through service tenures since land was the basis of relationships and power was decentralized in such societies. The term ‘feudal’ has been applied to such diverse situations that it is difficult to provide a single definition, applicable to all.

  The recognition of variants in modes of production drew from the idea that a dialectical method could be used to arrive at formulations about history, but it need not follow the stipulated five stages or modes as described by Marx, of which primitive communism, slavery and feudalism would pertain to pre-colonial history. Thus some theories derived from Marxism have departed from the framework of the modes defined for Europe and have also been influenced in their methodology by other innovatory forms. Illustrative of this are some studies of the formation of states, particularly in the first millennium BC, and the manner in which ruling clans and chiefs acquired the characteristics of states and kings. The discussions of this process show a familiarity with anthropological analyses of the early state, although the utilization of such models is limited. Among anthropologists at the time there was considerable interest in questions relating to the control over irrigation, labour, resources and technologies, and these questions are reflected in the early notions of the state.