Eurocentric History vs. the Indian Perspective

[Guest guest]

Eurocentric History vs. the Indian Perspective

Author: Prof. M. G. S. Narayanan

Publication: ICHR Newsletter

January-June 2002

URL: http://www.geocities.com/ifihhome/articles/mgs002.html

History is constantly rewritten by historians in every country in

every age. Since India became independent in 1947, there was an

urgent need to rewrite Indian history from the point of view of

independent India. Not only was there so much of accumulated new

source materials, both archaeological and literary, waiting to be

processed and interpreted, but the new citizens of the Republic of

India had several new questions to be addressed to the past.

 

As long as the British Government kept India as their colony, they

sponsored the writing and teaching of Indian History with a colonial

slant. The institutions which they created for carrying on research

were largely controlled by the foreigners and their supporters.

Therefore it is only natural that in course of time Indian thinkers

began to feel that the intellectual and cultural hegemony of the

colonial masters must be terminated, at least after half a century of

political independence.

 

This was not an easy job. Though the visible hand of the foreign

ruler had been removed, the invisible strings of colonialism

continued to operate in our universities and educational network.

Most of the historians of India in my generation were trained in

Western Universities and had been in the habit of looking up to them

for appreciation and rewards. A Eurocentric approach to history

prevailed, and in spite of the challenge that Nationalists offered to

imperialist ideas, they were often under the influence of Western

concepts, knowing or unknowingly.

 

It is good that our historians learnt a lot about the craft from

their European and American mentors, but they also imbibed notions of

Western superiority and Western ideas of `Progress'

and `Civilization'. There was a general tendency to condemn and

denigrate everything Indian, calling it Hindu and communal, without

realizing the fact that the label `Hindu' did not represent a

religion in the Semitic or Western sense, but a whole civilization

which possessed institutions and outlook entirely different from

those of the Western civilization.

 

Western standards, capitalist or communist, were applied

indiscriminately to Indian history for evaluating the developments in

all walks of life. This was evident in the way terms like religion,

state, class, empire, nation, law, justice, morality, etc. were used

in the analysis and interpretation of the past in India.

 

The Vedic Age, the period of the composition of Vedic hymns in the

land of the great rivers, was discussed in the context of an

imaginary "Aryan Invasion" for which there was no trace in

archaeology or literature. They postulated the existence of

a `Dravidian race' of inhabitants who were suppressed or driven out

by the so-called `Aryan race' of invaders who established their

control over the native `Dravidian race'. The story of Aryan-

Dravidian dichotomy and racial conflict, for substantiating which

there was no record, was visualized as the running thread connecting

all events in India through the ages. The work of Mahavira and

Gautama Buddha in propagating their philosophy had come to be treated

as their attempt to establish new `religions' different from the

Hindu `religion'… These reformers were called `founders of religion',

and when the number of their followers dwindled eventually due to

various factors, it was attributed to `religious persecution' though

there was no such evidence. The history of different political units

had been discussed as though they were kingdoms established

arbitrarily by some powerful tyrants and functioning arbitrarily

without reference to a framework of civilization. European and West

Asian parallels of religious persecution, conversion, state religion,

church-state conflicts etc. seem to have been at the back of the

historian's mind while approaching all Indian phenomena. The history

of India for the period after Harsha was often conceived as the

history of the Delhi Sultanate and the Mughal Empire. Society outside

these was neglected as if it was of no consequence. The history of

the regions of North East India and South India was often kept out of

what came to be regarded as the mainstream history of India. The

process of development of the Indian civilization, its formation and

dissemination, and the stages of its growth were not subject matter

to be considered in history courses taught in schools and colleges.

 

When such assumptions and attitudes came to be questioned towards the

close of the previous century, historians opposed to change organized

campaigns in the media against all attempts to review and rewrite

history. This was understandable. It was too late for established

writers to change their framework and parameters of references and

they feared that unsympathetic historians of another generation might

scrutinize their work too closely, find it wanting, and reject or

modify certain aspects of their contribution.

 

There was a similar fear in political circles which enjoyed power for

long and cherished their Westernised ways of life. They were

frustrated by the course of direction taken by democracy in India in

which the voice of the newly empowered masses increasingly became

assertive and decisive. Therefore the conservative politicians and

the conservative historians joined hands to resist any change in the

writing and teaching of Indian history.

 

Fortunately for us, there is a growing number of historians in India,

especially among the younger generation, who would refuse to hold any

philosophy or ideology of history, be it Imperialist or Nationalist

or Marxist, as the last word, the final truth. They are prepared to

learn about all new refinements in historical method, in India or

elsewhere, to judge everything independently, and to subject all

preconceived notions to scrutiny with an open mind, ready to accept

anything that is supported by reliable evidence. This new healthy

trend has to be encouraged.

 

The Indian Council of Historical Research is committed to support

genuine research in all possible ways without reference to any creed

or ideology.

 

We are aware of the fact that certain historians professing to

project the Marxist ideology have been in the habit of claiming

infallibility and monopoly of wisdom, branding all other historians

as reactionary and communal and treating them as untouchables. This

intellectual fascism has to be discouraged. What they were enjoying

for some time was not a monopoly of wisdom but a monopoly of power in

several government bodies and universities. This has come to an end

happily. Historical research must now gather new momentum in this

country so that our people are eventually liberated from the hegemony

of Eurocentric history and enabled to develop their own independent

Indian perspective.