APPROACHES TO STUDYING INDIAN HISTORY

- Shantha S
India’s Ancient Past is a topic for intense debate even today; various approaches to studying
material remains and diverse methods of interpreting sources mean that arriving at a common
conclusion is out of question. In this paper, I have tried to trace the route that writing of
Indian history took and how it has evolved into various, and sometimes conflicting, schools
of thought.
Throughout history of historiography innumerable methods of interpretation of facts have
been employed. These facts maybe in the form of inscriptions, manuscripts, coins and what
not. The relationship between a historian and his facts is similar to that between a fishmonger
and his fish on the slab. The historian takes home his facts, cooks them and then serves them
in a way he finds desirable. He might be motivated by various factors- political leanings,
personal beliefs, cultural background and so on. The presentation of facts according to the
With its believed beginnings in the colonial period, historiography of Ancient India has a
very interesting history of itself. Colonial interest in the subject came from a need to
understand the land that they were ruling- its culture, traditions and beliefs. In a country as
diverse as India, this was no small task; throughout the period of their rule, European
colonists in India produced various works on Indian history. Some were blatantly partial and
all praises for the British occupation and viewed India as a land of despotic rule, a land
rescued from stagnant backwardness by the saving grace of the British conquest. Others were
more sympathetic towards the Indian culture and gave more credit to the Ancient Indian past.
With the upcoming nationalist tendencies in the Indian subcontinent in the later parts of the
19th century and the earlier parts of the 20th century, the Nationalist approach to Indian
history became widespread with many Indians re-interpreting History to instil a sense of
pride in our own glorious past. This came out in response to growing imperialist writings.
In the post colonial period we see many diverse approaches to Indian historiography
developing. Many were adopted from pre-existing ideas, such as Marxism. Marxism saw a
tremendous growth in the later part of the twentieth century when Marxist writings on Indian
history flooded the markets. Parallelly, the subaltern and Postmodernist approaches to history
also developed.
Before beginning with modern-day approaches to historiography, let us talk about whether
the ancient Indians themselves had a sense of history writing.

Did Ancient India have a sense of History writing?

While we have several ‘historians’ of Ancient Greece like Herodotus (known as the ‘father of
history’), Thucydides (who wrote The History of the Peloponnesian War) and Herodotus, we
hardly find such ‘historians’ in the contemporaneously growing Ancient Indian world. Was
this because of the bias against Ancient Indians, who were viewed as ‘backward’ and ‘rural’
or did Ancient India truly lack in having a sense of history?
While Ancient Indian writings such as Kautilya’s Arthshastra (on polity) or Kalidasa’s
literary works are found, finds of works specific to unravelling the mysteries of the past in a
systematic, ‘scientific’ pattern are not that common. This notion that Ancient Indians did not
have a concept of history, popularised by colonial officials and accepted by many historians
even today, has been refuted by many Indologists. The basis for their rebuttal is that the
nature of the works that were produced in Ancient India was different from the ones
produced today and in Ancient Greece.
One explanation as to why stereotypical works on history are not found in ancient India is
that Ancient Indian thinking had a deep-rooted philosophical basis1 which wouldn’t be
considered as ‘history writing’ in the modern-day context.
The Vedas, which are held sacred by Hindus, are described to be apauruseya (existing beyond
human). This transcendental character of the Vedas is attributed to their anonymity
characterized by lack of reference to authorship. Many sastras (such as the Mimasa sastra)
tried to achieve this level of transcendence by following a similar pattern of anonymity or
pseudo-anonymity, and by claiming their origin as the Vedas. Thus, these works have
eliminated all signs of historical referentiality and through it, all possibilities of
historiography.2
The cyclic view of time by Ancient Indians is possibly another reason for indifference to
history (and thereby, its writing). According to ancient Indian tradition, the cyclic theory
consisted of four yugas which would continue in repetition till the end of time. In contrast to
this, a linear sense of time is seen where genealogy of dynasties was recorded. In this context,
it can be said that the cyclic view of time was in a cosmological sense, whereas the linear
view was more in terms of human existence.
The beginning of the ‘kavya’ tradition in the post-
Mauryan era, meant writing now had a more
imaginative, expressive twist to it. For example, some
of Kalidasa’s works- Raghuvamsha, Vikramorvasi and
Kumarasambhava, considered to be the stories of Gupta
kings Samudragupta, Chandragupta II and
Kumaragupta, respectively, shows how histories were
transformed into myths and legends in order to add a
cosmic or eternal aspect to the rulers.3 Most authors
preferred to write as poets as opposed to historians,
probably because of their intended audience.
Various other works of ancient India including the
Sangam texts and the prasastis commissioned by
different emperors (for example, the Prayag Prasasti
praising Samudragupta, written by Harisena) give a
glimpse of a sense of history-writing in ancient Indians,
though they did it in their own exaggerated, elaborate ways.

1. Kalidas Nag, Greater India

2. Sheldon Pollock, Mimamsa and the Problem of History in Traditional India
3. Image of Kalidas
https://www.google.com/search?q=Kalidasa&sxsrf=ALeKk016k6ONknSV30cbETjgh4gRtFyfZA:161
0527898393&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjQ_KL6w5juAhXs6XMBHRVBDEIQ_
AUoAXoECBIQAw&biw=1366&bih=657#imgrc=XVKC1OjwjoO49M
Thus, Ancient Indians were not strangers to the concept of history writing. Rather,
interpretation of these texts in today’s methodological and scientific context would lead to
their classification as literary works rather than historical ones.
As we move forward from Ancient Indian history, we have the Rajatarangini written by
Kalhana, who is known to be the earliest Indian ‘historian’ in 12th c. CE. It records the
histography of north-western region of the subcontinent in general and the kings of Kashmir
in particular.
In the intervening periods of the Delhi Sultanate and the Mughal rule, we find voluminous
works of history being produced by various scholars, Indian and foreign, alike. Many Mughal
rulers specially appointed courtiers to produce immense works that recorded not only their
dynastic histories but also the socio-cultural conditions that existed at the time.

MODERN SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT

Now, turning to the more widely accepted theory that writing of Indian history began only
with the arrival of the British/European colonists in the sub-continent. Though, originally a
curiosity to look into the Indian past was ignited by colonial interests and carried on by
staunch imperialists and colonial officers and explorers, we find a more positive and
nurturing attitude being developed towards the writing of Indian history.
Indology is described to be the study of Indian history, literature, philosophy and culture; a
study of India and her people.
Though the British are largely credited for the development of Indology, we find interest in
Indian culture emanating from the 12th century when Pope Honorius IV advocated learning
oriental languages which would facilitate missionary works to these countries.
Surprisingly, it is a Russian by the name of Gerasim Lebedev who is known as the ‘father of
Indology’. He was a professional musician who lived in India between 1785 and 1797. He
learnt Indian languages, literature and traditions, and is believed to have set up the first
Bengali theatre here.

1. The Orientalist Approach

Along with Indology, there was rise in Orientalism. As the term itself connotes (‘the Orient’
meaning ‘the East’), Orientalism is a more sympathetic study of South-East Asian cultures,
languages, histories and art. Orientalism as a school of history/thought developed during the
colonial period in response to the growing ‘Anglican’ ideas which advocated that the country
be ruled according to British traditions and law. Orientalists were more accepting of Indian
traditions and believed that India should be ruled in accordance to her own customs. Their
view of Indian history gave more credit to the glory of the Indian past; that India had once
been home to great civilisations which had since fallen to their present state of ‘decay’.
Orientalism became a popular subject of study in Univesities across Europe in the 18th and
19th centuries. Not only the British, but the French and the Germans too did extensive
research in this area. In the context of the British, many Orientalists belonged to the colonial
bureaucracy whose interest in Indian history came from the view of ease of ruling the
indigenous population; of learning and understanding the customs and traditions that dictated
their lives.
Sir William Jones was probably one of the most
influential Indologists of his time; he was the first
British to learn Sanskrit and study the Vedas. He
acquired his education from the Oxford University
(where he studied law), and it was here that he began
his studies on Oriental languages, of which he
mastered 16. After being knighted in 1783, he set sail
to Calcutta to serve in the Supreme Court. His
immense interest in philology and Indology, led to
him setting up the Asiatic Society of Bengal in 1784.
In William Jones’ own words on the Asiatic Society;
“It will flourish, if naturalists, chemists,
antiquaries, philologers and men of science, in
different parts of Asia, will commit their
observations to writing, and send them to the
Asiatic Society at Calcutta; it will languish, if
such communications shall be long intermitted; and it will die away, if they shall
entirely cease.”1
The Asiatic society of Bengal was the vehicle on which Jones perpetuated his belief of the
importance of Hindu culture and the intimate relationship that Sanskrit shared with many
languages.
Even though he proclaimed to have a great love for Indian culture and even placed the
Mahabharat above the Greek work of Iliad2, he was a devout Christian and viewed the
Srimad Bhagavatam as a “motley story” and claimed that these works were based on
Christian Gospels.
Along with Jones, another officer of the East India Company who adopted the Orientalist
approach to the study of Indian history was H. H. Wilson. He is often described as the
‘greatest Sanskrit scholar of his time’ (in colonial terms, of course). He served as the
secretary of the Asiatic Society of Bengal from 1811 to 1833 and also published a ‘Sanskrit
to English’ dictionary. He translated the Vishnu Purana, the Rig Veda and wrote books such
as ‘Lectures on the Religious and Philosophical Systems of the Hindus’.

1. https://www.asiaticsocietykolkata.org/history
2. S.N. Mukharji; ‘Sir William Jones: A study of Eighteenth-Century British Attitudes to India’
3. Image of William Jones -
https://www.google.com/search?q=william+jones&tbm=isch&ved=2ahUKEwiV6aGy6JjuAhUQh0sF
HaCMAXIQ2-
cCegQIABAA&oq=willi&gs_lcp=CgNpbWcQARgAMgQIIxAnMgUIABCxAzIFCAAQsQMyCAgA
ELEDEIMBMggIABCxAxCDATIFCAAQsQMyBQgAELEDMgUIABCxAzIFCAAQsQMyBQgAEL
EDOgQIABBDOgIIAFCl3ARYoOIEYL3pBGgAcAB4AIABoQKIAagJkgEFMC4xLjSYAQCgAQGq
AQtnd3Mtd2l6LWltZ8ABAQ&sclient=img&ei=z9r-
X9XFHZCOrtoPoJmGkAc&bih=657&biw=1366#imgrc=Us2hF0zzjeQzzM
He also helped James Mill in compiling his ‘History of British India’ but later criticized
Mill’s historiography;
“Mill’s view of Hindu religion is full of very serious defects, arising from inveterate
prejudices and imperfect knowledge. Every text, every circumstance, that makes
against the Hindu character, is most assiduously cited, and everything in its favour as
carefully kept out of sight, whilst a total neglect is displayed of Hindu belief.”
While Wilson advocated that the British shouldn’t force Christianity on Indians, he
contradicts himself and propounds that Christianity should replace the Vedic culture, but in a
systematic manner. He believed that a careful study of Indian traditions should be done to
facilitate the conversion.
Another well-known Orientalist, also known as the
Father of Indian Archaeology, was Sir Alexander
Cunningham. He was a colonial officer, joining the
Company under the Bengal Engineers in 1833. He
excavated the important Buddhist sites of Sarnath and
Sanchi and made the first serious attempt towards
studying Buddhism through archaeological remains. He
served as the Director-General of the Archaeological
Survey of India from 1861 till its dissolution in 1865.
Cunningham’s interest in Indian archaeology was
ignited as a part of his work for the Company which
required that he travel the length and breadth of the
country. He recorded elaborate reports and made
detailed drawings of the structures he encountered. His
love and acceptance of the Indian past and scholarship
can be gleaned from his works. His work as the DG of ASI led to many significant
excavations across India, from Taxila to the Harappan civilization.

Limitations
One of the major limitations of the Orientalist school of thought is that, in the enthusiasm of
discovery, they, especially William Jones, exaggerated and romanticized the value of new
revelations which were not always warranted by sources. Jones proposed far-fetched ideas
linking the Ancient Indians and Greeks and asserted that the Greeks borrowed many
philosophical and mathematical ideas from the Indians, which has not been backed by
reliable sources. Many nationalist historians in the 19th and 20th centuries turned to these
works to establish the idea of a glorious ancient Indian past.
1. Image of Alexander Cunnigham-
https://www.google.com/search?q=alexander+cunningham&tbm=isch&ved=2ahUKEwjZ5M-
N65juAhWK2nMBHSRhAx0Q2-
cCegQIABAA&oq=alexander+&gs_lcp=CgNpbWcQARgAMgQIIxAnMgUIABCxAzIFCAAQsQMy
BQgAELEDMggIABCxAxCDATIFCAAQsQMyBQgAELEDMggIABCxAxCDATICCAAyCAgAEL
EDEIMBOgQIABBDUK-
bDFiVqQxg2bEMaABwAHgAgAHrAYgB0hCSAQQyLTEwmAEAoAEBqgELZ3dzLXdpei1pbWfA
AQE&sclient=img&ei=p93-
X5n1OYq1z7sPpMKN6AE&bih=657&biw=1366#imgrc=YUWBfAqQWs2xZM
 2. The Imperialist Approach
Lord Lawrence who served as the Governor General of India during Cunningham’s time, like
many other colonial officials believed the ASI to be a waste of funds and consequently shut it
down. This brings us to the Imperialist school of thought.
In the category of imperialists, a very prominent
name is that of James Mill’s. Although he never
learnt any Indian language (neither modern ones
like Hindi nor ancient ones like Sanskrit) and did
not even set foot in India, his work on Indian
history and culture- ‘History of British India’- a
voluminous work published in 1818, was
considered to be the standard work on the topic and
was referred to by many scholars, colonial and
modern. The book heavily criticized Jones and his
sympathetic (‘Oriental’) approach to Indian history;
Mill’s view of Indian history was harsh, and he
viewed much of Indian history to be mythological
fantasy. According to him, India never had a
glorious past and the country was saved from its
rural and backwardness nature by the British
colonials.
To him, Indian religion meant, ‘The worship of the emblems of generative organs’ and
ascribing to God, ‘…an immense train of obscene acts.’

Another member of the imperialist school of thought was V A Smith. Born in England in
1843, he reached India as an officer of the East India Company in 1871. His book, ‘Early
History of India’ emphasizes the role of foreigners in Ancient India, with Alexander’s
attempted invasion on the country forming almost one-third of the book.

His racial arrogance is obvious when he writes,

“The triumphant progress of Alexander from the Himalayas to the sea demonstrated
the inherent weakness of the greatest Asiatic armies when confronted with European
skill and discipline”1

1. V.A. Smith; Early History of India, 1904

2. Image of James Mill-
https://www.google.com/search?q=james+mill&tbm=isch&ved=2ahUKEwi3zarZ6JjuAhXaVn0KHW
w1Dk0Q2-
cCegQIABAA&oq=james+&gs_lcp=CgNpbWcQARgAMgQIIxAnMgQIIxAnMgQIABBDMgQIABB
DMgQIABBDMgQIABBDMgQIABBDMgQIABBDMgQIABBDMgQIABBDOgoIABCxAxCDARB
DUPP2DFiw_QxgwYkNaABwAHgCgAGoBIgBpA-
SAQswLjEuMi4yLjAuMZgBAKABAaoBC2d3cy13aXotaW1nwAEB&sclient=img&ei=Idv-
X_e4Gdqt9QPs6rjoBA&bih=657&biw=1366#imgrc=YBoP9GDO0NPe8M
He believed that India was a land of despotism which did not experience political unity until
the establishment of British rule. His book served as a textbook for many years and is still
referred to by scholars.
Another great critique of Ancient Indian culture
was the German scholar and philologist, Max
Muller. He was educated in Leipzig, where he
learnt Sanskrit, before moving to England in 1846.
He was commissioned by the East India Company
to translate the Rig Veda to English. He translated
many Eastern literary works to English; he
published a 50-volume series known as the ‘Sacred
books of the East’, which included some Chinese
and Iranian books, as well.
His approach to Indian history was not free of
prejudice- his personal religious beliefs and
political requirements substantially coloured his
approach. He believed that Ancient Indians had no
sense of chronology or time frame, and that Indians
were accustomed to despotic rule. His clear
prejudice against Hinduism, from a Christian
standpoint is very apparent in his disdainful writings regarding the former.
When Duke of Argyll was appointed Secretary of State for India in December 1868, Max
Mueller wrote to him-
"India has been conquered once, but India must be conquered again, and that second
conquest should be a conquest by education…the ancient religion of India is doomed,
and if Christianity does not step in, whose fault will it be?"1

Attempts to interpret Ancient Indian texts with the goal of establishing the superiority of
Christianity over Hinduism developed under the Evangelical or the Anglicist approach to
Indian history. This school of thought grew in the earlier periods of the British Raj to
facilitate missionary work and encourage conversions to Christianity. With the ongoing
debate in England on how to rule the Indian subcontinent, Evangelists were horrified with the
view of some that the Company should take the idolatry and improprieties of a ‘pagan’
culture seriously. Christian Missionaries and European Historians were more interested in
learning and writing about Indian history in order to depict its flaws and prepare the ground
for evangelical activity.

1. ‘Missionaries in India: Continuities, changes, Dilemmas’

2. Image of Max Muller
https://www.google.com/search?q=max+muller&tbm=isch&ved=2ahUKEwjikcLA6ZjuAhWwn0sFHb
OkCqgQ2-
cCegQIABAA&oq=max+mu&gs_lcp=CgNpbWcQARgAMgQIIxAnMgIIADICCAAyAggAMgIIADI
CCAAyAggAMgIIADICCAAyAggAOgQIABBDOggIABCxAxCDAToHCAAQsQMQQzoFCAAQs
QM6CggAELEDEIMBEENQy80FWN3WBWCa3gVoAHAAeACAAfoBiAGICpIBBTAuMS41mAE
AoAEBqgELZ3dzLXdpei1pbWfAAQE&sclient=img&ei=-dv-
X6KxMbC_rtoPs8mqwAo&bih=657&biw=1366#imgrc=8PiqkTnR_TOfiM
India, with her huge population, was seen as an unlimited field for missionary work. This
brought many Christian missionaries to the country without the knowledge of the Company.
The Indian religion was perceived by the British missionaries as devils waiting to be
conquered by the army of Jesus.
Within this clearly skewed approach to Indian history, William Carey’s experiment with
‘Church Sanskrit’ is worth mentioning. William Carey was a pioneer in Western (missionary)
scholarship in Oriental studies and the founder of the Baptist Missionary school. From 1801,
as the professor of Oriental Languages, he composed numerous philosophical works,
consisting of grammars and dictionaries in various Indian languages.
‘Church Sanskrit’ would be, according to him, a place where ‘Christian Pundits’ would be
trained who would probe into “these mysterious sacred nothings” and expose them as
worthless. He was distressed that this “golden casket (of Sanskrit) exquisitely wrought” had
remained “filled with nothing but pebbles and trash.” He was determined to fill it with
“riches-beyond all price”, that is, the doctrine of Christianity.

Limitations
The limitations of the Imperialist approach are obvious. There was false glorification of the
British rule and the portrayal of the British as saviours of a decaying country is not accurate.
The harsh view towards indigenous cultures and the unfaltering praise for colonial rule and
the establishers of the rule provides a very biased view which cannot be depended upon.
The portrayal of the Indian civilization as ‘stagnant’ and ‘backward’ is common to almost all
imperialist writings. The attempts to negate the cultural richness of the Indian subcontinent
while praising the imperial country makes this a very unreliable source of history writing.

2. The Nationalist Approach

In response to the growing imperialistic view of Indian history, which portrayed India as a
land of despotic rule that had been saved by the coming of the British, the Nationalist school
of thought developed; one which valued political legitimacy and cultural identity of the
country.
Many Indian scholars were astonished at the blatant distortion of Indian history by the British
in order to establish their supremacy. They decided to interpret our history in a manner that
would make a case for social reform, self-governance and the revival of Hinduism; it was an
attempt to restore national self esteem and establish our glorious past. Another key element of
this approach was Economic nationalism which pointed out the disastrous outcomes of the
economic policies followed by the British. But most importantly, it tried to encourage anti-
imperialist sentiments to further the cause of nation-building through political integration.
Nationalist approach to history can be described as one which tends to contribute to the
growth of nationalist feelings and to unify people in the face of religious, caste, or linguistic
differences or class differentiation. Nationalist writings show a clear attempt to contradict the
stereotypes flung at the Indian population by the colonial rulers day after day; they tried to
instil self-esteem in the Indian population while being faced with colonial denigration of the
Indian people and their historical record.
While writing about the history of India, the periods of Chandragupta Maurya, Asoka and
Akbar were described to be ‘great’ as they built great empires that spread over large portions
of the Indian subcontinent. The worth of a ruler was thus judged by the process of empire
building.
Due to the extensive research and studies that went into writing nationalist historiography,
their works were very often empirically sound. They contributed to the cultural defence of
our nation against the repeated attacks by the British. They uncovered new sources and
developed new methods of interpretation of the existing sources. They raised many new
questions, produced controversies and initiated active debates.
The phrase ‘Nationalist historian’ was first used by
R.C. Majumdar to denote a nationalist bias towards
the interpretation of History, especially in the colonial
context. It helped to un-earth a variety of sources, and
study them in an approach widely different from the
ones adopted previously. It also encouraged the re-
interpretation of previously found sources. It was both
a cause and result of the nationalist struggle in India.
According to Majumdar, the origins of India's
freedom struggle lie in the English-educated Indian
middle-class. His views on the freedom struggle are
found in his book ‘History of the Freedom Movement
in India’. He was an admirer of Swami
Vivekananda and Ramakrishna Paramahamsa.
One of the most prominent names in Nationalist
Historiography, Rajendralal Mitra, started
Nationalist writing in India with the publication of some Vedic texts and the book entitled
Indo-Aryans (1881). R.G. Bhandarkar wrote several books on Sanskrit and A Peep into the
Early History of India (1900). K.A. Nilakanta Sastri wrote extensively on the history of
South India (The Pandyan Kingdom from the Earliest times to the 16th century, 1929; A
History of South India, 1955, and so on). In his book Hindu Polity (1924), K.P. Jayaswal
effectively broke down the myth that Indians had no political ideas and institutions.
H.C. Raychaudhuri, V.K. Rajwade, T.V. Mahalingam and many other Indian scholars
researched and wrote extensively on various aspects of Ancient Indian history- society,
polity, economy. They made effective attempts to break down the walls of misinformation
spread by colonialists.

1. Image if RC Majumdar
https://www.google.com/search?q=rc+majumdar&tbm=isch&ved=2ahUKEwiazq7u6ZjuAhU_hUsFHbqeC
cAQ2cCegQIABAA&oq=RC+M&gs_lcp=CgNpbWcQARgAMgQIIxAnMgUIABCxAzICCAAyAggAMg
IIADICCAAyAggAMgIIADICCAAyAggAOgQIABBDOggIABCxAxCDAToHCAAQsQMQQ1C3rgRY
wLcEYM29BGgAcAB4AIAB8gGIAagGkgEFMC4yLjKYAQCgAQGqAQtnd3Mtd2l6LWltZ8ABAQ&scl
ient=img&ei=Wdz-X9q9Or-KrtoPur2mgAw&bih=657&biw=1366#imgrc=ZG5zq2okBHB4kM
Under the wave of Nationalism, there was considerable interest in the study of Ancient Indian
political theory. Themes of the status and role of the king, the channels of political
representation, the function of the bureaucracy, and the distribution of power were
scrutinised, and considerable works were produced on them. Furthermore, this led to the
engagement of a large number of Indian scholars in the writing of their own history, a field
which was previously dominated by foreign writers. This led to a considerable decrease in the
number of European Indologists, except in France.

Limitations
In their commitment to imbibe a sense of pride in the Indian past, Nationalist historiographers
often indulged in false and over-glorification of our past. Their view of ancient dynasties as
great civilizations turned a blind eye to the agony of the marginalized communities and
women. In order to justify the past, they underplayed the atrocities of the caste system and the
male domination that existed.
Also, while rightly portraying the impact of Indian culture on world civilization, they
undermined the impact that other cultures had on the Indian culture.

3. The Marxist Approach

Marxism, as an approach to Indian history, developed during the early parts of the twentieth
century and became the most influential school during the latter part of the century. Marxism
started and progressed on the basis of writings of philosophers such as Karl Marx and
Friedrich Engels. Marxism, as a theory, stresses on a socioeconomic interpretation of
historical developments; it works on the philosophy of dialectical materialism which
emphasizes on a close examination of real-world examination conditions, in terms of class,
labour and socioeconomic interactions.
According to this theory, there are five stages through which every society goes through,
namely;
1. Primitive Communism
2. Slavery
3. Feudalism
4. Capitalism
5. Communism
These stages were proposed by Marx and Engels based on their understanding of European
history and they were largely influenced by G.W.F. Hegels and Lewis Henry Morgan. The
former never learnt Sanskrit and his outlook on Indian history was based on the works of
William Jones, James Mill, and the like; like theirs, his perception of Indian history was also
skewed, and the results were disastrous. Though he agreed, however reluctantly, that Indian
philosophy was rich and had great antiquity, he continued to hold that the ancient Indian
system was far inferior to their contemporaries- Romans and Greeks. Despite the
insufficiencies of Hegel’s works, they were used all around the world and many Indian
Marxists set out on a similar path.
Karl Marx continued along the same lines of thinking as Hegel. He considered India to be
backward and was a great advocator of the British rule of India.

He wrote;

“India, then could not escape being conquered, and the whole of her past history, if it
be anything, is the history of the successive conquests she has undergone. Indian
society has no history at all, at least no known history. What we call its history, is but
history of the successive intruders who founded their empires on passive basis of that
unresisting and unchanging society…”1

Marxism, as an approach to Indian history came as a response to imperialist school of

thought. One of the flag bearers of the Marxist view, M.N. Roy, paved the path with his book
‘India in Transition’ which was published in 1922. It was followed by ‘India Today’ by R.
Palme Dutt in 1940 and ‘The Social Background of Indian Nationalism’ by A.R. Desai in
1959. All the three books were considered to be classical Marxist Indian works which
represented the Nationalist movement as a particular stage in the development of mode of
production. Marxist historians turned their attention to the internal contradictions of the
Indian society; the caste system and the marginalized sections like peasants and workers were
highlighted and the latter’s role, along with that of women, in the Independence movement
was brought to the forefront. Indian Marxist historians lay great emphasis on economic
interpretation of all social and religious ideas, customs and institutions.
In the post-independence period, we see Marxist
historians on the rise with scholars like D.D Kosambi,
R.S. Sharma, Romila Thapar, Bipan Chandra, Irfan
Habib, Sumit Sarkar among others. They believed that
the interpretation of history through dynastic
achievements had been already done, and there was
need to understand history in terms of its social set-up.
D.D. Kosambi was an Indian mathematician and had
not studied History officially. His growing interest in
Marxist ideology pushed him to delve deeper into the
social structure of Ancient India. He follows the
Marxist model of development where every society
goes through different stages (as mentioned above)
and the failure of one system leads to the emergence
of a new one. A society, therefore, continually
progresses.

1. Karl Marx; The British rule in India New-York Daily Tribune, June 25, 1853
2. Image of DD Kosambi
https://www.google.com/search?q=dd+kosambi&tbm=isch&ved=2ahUKEwjnysCS6pjuAhVDWCsKH
afwBZEQ2-
cCegQIABAA&oq=Dd+&gs_lcp=CgNpbWcQARgAMgQIIxAnMgUIABCxAzIICAAQsQMQgwEyC
AgAELEDEIMBMgUIABCxAzICCAAyAggAMgIIADICCAAyAggAUOWNB1iskgdgoJkHaABwA
HgAgAHHAYgBsgSSAQMwLjOYAQCgAQGqAQtnd3Mtd2l6LWltZ8ABAQ&sclient=img&ei=pdz-
X6fkLcOwrQGn4ZeICQ&bih=657&biw=1366#imgrc=H4QNUuhEWiKhsM
 “D D Kosambi profoundly redefined the message that Marxism had for historians.
What set him apart from others who "applied" Marxism to Indian history was his
determination to maintain, indeed increase the standard of rigour in his factual and
textual research, for Marxism dealt with a far more extensive area than the one over
which research had conventionally been conducted. Guided by the basic thesis about
how social evolution occurs, he rejected the view that India had ever passed through a
phase of slavery; rather it was the construction of caste society that happened here.
The reasons for his acceptance of a stage of feudalism spanning the period from that
of the Guptas to the Mughals are most interesting.”1

Limitations
The Marxist school of thought follows the chronology provided by the imperialists, and like
them, they do not find anything great about Ancient Indian civilization; for the Marxists
everything great about the Indian civilization has been the contribution of conquerors.
Accordingly, the Kushana period, and the Gupta, is considered to be the Golden Age.
Furthermore, the period from the Gupta rule to that of the conquest of the Muslims in the 12th
c. is considered to be the ‘Period of Feudalism’, i.e., a Dark Age during which everything
degenerated. They were averse to religion and their irreverence for saints and sages is
obvious.

4. The Cambridge/Neo-Imperialist Approach

The Cambridge School of Historiography developed in the University of Cambridge in the
1960s in response to the Nationalist and Marxist view of historiography, chiefly under the
influence of John Andrew Gallagher. According to this theory, imperialism and nationalism
were not very different in ideology, and that the nationalist struggle was an interior conflict
between different factions of the Indian society rather
than one between the Indians and the British. They
believed that the leaders of the Nationalist struggle rose
from a greed for power and material benefit rather than
for the National good.

The flag bearers of the Cambridge school were

Gallagher, Anil Seal and Gordan Johnson. In his work,
The Emergence of Indian Nationalism : Competition
and Collaboration in the Later Nineteenth Century
(Cambridge, 1968), Seal emphasizes on the various
opportunities that came up for the Indian population
during the colonial rule; working as subordinates under
the civil service officers and the introduction of modern
professions such as law, western medicine, journalism
and teaching.

1. Irfan Habib; D.D. Kosambi: The Man and His Work, Vol.40, Issue No. 30
2. Image of Anil Seal
https://www.google.com/search?q=anil+seal&tbm=isch&ved=2ahUKEwiAzLLv65juAhXUnUsFHULaBeQQ2-
cCegQIABAA&oq=ANIL+&gs_lcp=CgNpbWcQARgAMgQIIxAnMgUIABCxAzIFCAAQsQMyBQgAELEDMgUIAB
CxAzIFCAAQsQMyAggAMgIIADIFCAAQsQMyBQgAELEDOgQIABBDOggIABCxAxCDAToHCAAQsQMQQ1Cb
_xdY-
4oYYJiSGGgAcAB4AIABvQSIAeYMkgELMC4xLjIuMC4xLjGYAQCgAQGqAQtnd3Mtd2l6LWltZ8ABAQ&sclient=
img&ei=dN7-X4DCPNS7rtoPwrSXoA4&bih=657&biw=1366#imgrc=vxYJ-8lFwRC_uM
The Cambridge School grew from the elitist theory/view of Nationalism in India. According
to this school of thought, the main motive behind modern politics was not economic change,
but on the contrary the institutional innovations introduced by the British. This theory
focussed on the region, rather than the nation, and upon the regional traditions that existed;
they studied the regional political changes that were sparked by institutional reforms
introduced by the British. Unlike the Marxists, scholars belonging to the Cambridge school of
Historiography did not focus on class and class division but on the formation of English-
educated elitists in each community, and the consequent struggle between them and the local
marginalized communities for securing opportunities offered by the British.

Limitations
The Cambridge approach was a renewed attempt to justify the colonial rule in India. Their
view that it was British initiative that paved the path to modernization in the Indian
subcontinent and minimizing the role that Indians played in this process has been widely
criticized. Their heavy dependence on British historical works and following the same bias as
the original colonial imperialists possessed makes their work one-sided and unreliable.

5. The Subaltern Approach

The term ‘Subaltern’, meaning ‘of inferior rank’,
has been adopted from Antonio Gramsci’s original
use of it to mean those groups of people who are
subject to the hegemony of the ruling class. Gramsci
was an Italian Marxist and Communist Party Leader
who was imprisoned for a long time by Mussolini’s
police till his death at the age of 46. The term
subaltern is also used to denote those who have
almost negligible political and economic power.

Subaltern studies in India emerged in 1982 as a way

of interpreting history according to the experiences
of the socially oppressed groups, be it in terms of
language, caste, culture, gender or race. This grew
from the efforts of Ranajit Guha whose main idea
was to break away from the Eurocentric ways of
interpreting history and to give a voice to those who
had been silenced during the long course of the history of our subcontinent. Guha’s view was
that only by learning what a majority of the population, albeit a ‘silent’ majority, went
through can we understand how they shaped the course of history.

1. Image of Ranajit Guha

https://www.google.com/search?q=ranajit+guha&tbm=isch&ved=2ahUKEwiRofXL6pjuAhUFZSsKHfGJC
k0Q2-
cCegQIABAA&oq=ranaj&gs_lcp=CgNpbWcQARgAMgQIIxAnMgIIADICCAAyAggAMgIIADICCAAy
AggAMgIIADICCAAyAggAOgQIABBDOggIABCxAxCDAToFCAAQsQM6CggAELEDEIMBEENQ5J
UIWIabCGDXoQhoAHAAeACAAc4BiAGnB5IBBTAuMy4ymAEAoAEBqgELZ3dzLXdpei1pbWfAAQ
E&sclient=img&ei=Ht3-X5GaCYXKrQHxk6roBA&bih=657&biw=1366#imgrc=_3QdKu865nXqEM
Shahid Amin was a close associate of Guha and is an important contributor to the field of
subaltern studies. He studied the effects of Mahatma Gandhi on the minds of the farmers who
participated in the non-cooperation movement. Along with him, Sumit Sarkar has also
worked extensively on the subaltern approach. He employs the term subalterns for tribal and
low-caste agricultural labourers and sharecroppers, landholding peasants, generally of
intermediate caste status in Bengal.

In the introduction to his book, ‘Popular Movements and Middle-Class Leadership’, Sarkar
says;

“History from Below being by concentrating on local and regional developments,

encompassing various groups in the word popular-tribal, Peasant, artisan, labour
protests and in the middle class a class which started asserting some kind of regional
on national leadership and which had a totally different composition from Princes and
Zamindars.”

Previously employed methods of interpreting history gave overwhelming importance to the

ruling (or superior) classes. Rewriting of history under the subaltern approach enabled
bringing out the agony of the oppressed classes- women, marginalized castes, exploited
workers. Subaltern has been a way for historians to expand their language, to recognize the
historically subordinate position of the lives of various groups of people, because in
recognizing their "subalternity" they give them a voice and an agency. Thus, the issue of who
was dominating whom and who revolted against the domination came into the forefront of
this school of though.

Later on, we see subaltern thinking moving in line with the Postmodernist school of thought.
They begin to question the very basis for historical works.

Limitations
The Subaltern approach attracted critiques from scholars of different schools of thought-
Marxist, Nationalist, Cambridge among others- from the very beginning. One of the biggest
criticisms posed to the Subaltern approach is against the popularisation of an autonomous
domain for the subalterns. According to many scholars, this was not the case; the subalterns
mixed with the other classes of society, though there were periods when they revolted and
rebelled against the ‘higher’ classes. Additionally, the subaltern rejection of the spontaneity
of the peasant revolts and their portrayal as planned actions has also been criticised.

Other Approaches to Historiography

1. The Feminist Approach

With the emergence and progress of the feminist movement in India in the 1960s and 70s, a
different view towards interpreting history developed, namely Feminist Historiography. A
reconstruction of history, keeping in mind the injustice and social oppression of women and
its consequent impact on history-making has been taken into consideration while writing
history under this approach. Women’s vulnerability due to the denial of ownership of
productive resources has been focused on, in the analysis of how progressive laws shaped
gender relations.

An important area of research has been analysis of the way in which colonial structures, such
as the legal structure, affected women’s lives- women’s vulnerability due to the denial of
ownership of productive resources has been focused on in the analysis of how laws shaped
gender relations.

While assessing the position of women in society, the concept of ‘powerless’ women has
been criticised by many historians. It is false and impossible to see the history of female
experience as powerless1. Being less powerful, after all, ‘is not to be powerless, or even to
lose all the time’. The desire to write a different kind of history has led feminist scholars to
explore the histories of resistance by women, individually and collectively.

The earliest feminist historians were men who tried to bring reforms within the upper caste
Hindu household by introducing social reforms- banning child marriage, sati, female
illiteracy and dowry. But what they didn’t question was the deeper and more-widespread
effects of patriarchy- unequal distribution and access to resources, limited opportunities to
earn, and so on.

Under the Nationalist movement, there was glorification of Hindu womanhood in ancient
India, especially during the Vedic ages. Instead of using the female experience as a
supplementary to progress their own agenda, feminist historians concentrate on highlighting
the social histories of women. Another aspect of writing women’s history was the painstaking
recovery of compiling of women’s work throughout history.

In the colonial period, two works based upon the women’s question in India—The High
Caste Hindu Woman (1887) by Pandita Ramabai, and Mother India (1927) by Katherine
Mayo—attracted international attention. In the post-Independence period, we see historians
such as Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak coming up.

2. The Post-Modernist Approach

Post-modernism is a broad movement that developed during the latter parts of the twentieth
century across philosophy, the arts, and architecture, making a departure from modernism.
The term has been used for denoting an era separate from the ‘modern’ era and its tendencies.
It is sceptic of and criticizes the grand narratives of the modernist period and considers the
knowledge claims and value systems of any society to be the product of a complex interplay
of social, political and historical happenings.

Post-modernist historians emphasize on the subjective nature of history and assert that
“multiple” truths exist; it is impossible to for a certainty if something actually happened in
the past. The postmodern mantra is basically: ''Everyone has their own truth,'' or perhaps
''Truth is what you make it.''

Post-modern theory shares many similarities with the concept of structuralism, which is yet
another approach to historiography. According to structuralism, history unfolds because of
broad, over-arching social, economic and political structures rather than just the critical,
decisive actions of one or a group of individuals. There is lesser importance given to
individual agency, and more to the sentiments of the masses. For example, Adolf Hitler rose
to power not because he was personally charismatic, but because the social climate among
the German people was ripe for such a leader.

Conclusion
In conclusion, though many approaches have developed over the years, history still remains
largely subjective and establishing one view as the ‘correct’ one is nearly impossible.
Perspectives evolve as a result of complex social and political processes and are largely
subjective to the historian.

Imperialist writing, no doubt, sparked off a huge trail of approaches to history which
progressed on their own paths and further branched out into even newer ones. But it is
important to consider the writings of Ancient and Medieval Indians and not discard them as
legends and mythologies; at the same time, it is important to be sensitive to exaggerations and
the use of poetic liberty in these works.

A critical approach while reading all works on history is required to understand the
limitations that each approach possesses. It would also be helpful to consider different
perspectives on one topic so as to get as complete a picture as possible. One approach is not
sufficient to understand the complex social and political processes that took place during a
particular period and made history. It is vital that we try to understand the historian’s own
bias in a particular topic.

Lastly, it is important to form our own opinions, not under the influence of any one writer,
but after reading as many perspectives to the topic as possible. It is important to consider as
many sections of the society as possible and try not to let our personal beliefs interfere in our
interpretation of history.

References

Sites
1. https://www.britannica.com/biography/William-Jones-British-orientalist-and-jurist
2. https://www.britannica.com/science/Orientalism-cultural-field-of-study
3. https://gosai.com/writings/early-indology-of-india
4. https://www.thecollector.com/ancient-greek-historians/
5. https://thescorpiodiariesblog.wordpress.com/2016/07/29/sense-of-history-in-early-
india/#_ftn8
6. https://knowindia.gov.in/culture-and-heritage/ancient-
history.php#:~:text=The%20Vedic%20civilization%20is%20the,states%20of%20Har
yana%20and%20Punjab.

PDFs
1. http://www.onlinejournal.in/IJIRV2I6/078.pdf
2. http://www.philoshistorydepartment.weebly.com/uploads/1/2/8/7/12870319/ancient_i
ndian_social_history_some_interpretation_by_romila_thapar.pdf
3. https://digitalcollections.sit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3533&context=isp_collec
tion