Reflections on History

[Guest guest]

On Ancient (Indian) History

 

It is generally assumed that the function of history is only to give us

factual accounts of the events and people of past generations. And yet when

Voltaire quipped that history is a nothing more than a pack of tricks we play on

the dead, he was not too much off the mark in that historians, unwittingly if

not intentionally, tend to transform the past, especially of the very distant

past.

 

It must be noted that history does many other things. It educates, entertains,

enlightens, inspires, and often gives a sense of pride and unity to a people.

These other functions of history are no less important that its oft-imagined

role of registering indubitable occurrences. A good bit of mythology and the

epics of various peoples constitute sacred history precisely because of the

cultural role they play.

 

In the context of ancient Indian history, as indeed of all temporally very

remote history, it can't be denied that there is considerable mist in the early

phases. The disinterested inquirer may be eager to clear up the nebulous past.

But it is also true that in the current phase of India's history, there are

urgent needs for cultural commonalty and national unity. It seems to me that it

is not only natural, but also sensible and wise, to present interpretations of

the past - especially of times about which no one can be a hundred percent

certain - that are more conducive to sectarian harmony than those that have the

potential for disunity and mutual suspicion.

 

The urgency to bring about national unity cannot be fully appreciated,

understood or deeply felt by those who are not part of the people. To the

outsider - no matter how scholarly and scientific and objective - the cold facts

convey no deeper meaning, they don't touch the heart and soul, there is no pride

in the reflection of ancient heroes, nor joy in the poetic visions of one's

ancestors. For those who recite and rejoice in them, there is more to the Vedas

than meters and myths.

 

This is the root cause of the different perspectives on Indian history that has

sadly acquired confrontational aspects in our own times. This too is the reason

why there is much resentment among the people of the land when aliens, with

little sensitivity for current problems, and no experience of divisive forces,

loftily preach to the <natives> on how they should write their history,

sometimes with what is perceived, rightly or wrongly, as deliberate or

unconscious intensions to sow dissensions. That is why, no matter how

persuasively erudite scholars may write with footnotes and all, no matter how

they <prove> their case with the relics of horses in Latvia or Sanskrit-like

sounds in Lithuania, the people of the country will not abandon their

prerogative to construct their own past in ways that are most fulfilling to

them. In the complex and troubled world in which we live, the practical and

pragmatic dimensions of history are no less important that the so-called

factual, especially when the latter rests on questionable foundations.

 

Napoleon once exclaimed rhetorically, "What is history if not a fable agreed

upon?" And this is important: If history is a fable, its moral must be good. As

I see it, irrespective of their truth-contents, the moral of the Aryan invasion

fable is not good for the present people of India. That of the other fable is

immensely beneficial.

 

Am I suggesting that we abandon the quest for "Truth?" Of course not. I am

merely saying that in the matter of religion and culture, and ancient history

too, Truth is often tainted or enriched by the eye of the beholder.

 

 

 

V. V. Raman

 

August 20, 2002