IDEOLOGY & D INTERPRETATION OF EARLY INDIAN HISTORY

INTRODUCTION

Sumtyms said that the interpretation of ancient periods of history has little
historiographical interest as they refer to tyms too distant for an ideological concern to
have too much meaning for a contemporary society.
This view wudnt however b valid for interpretation of early Indian history, where both
colonial xperience & nationalism of recent centuries influenced d study.
The interpretation of Indian history frm 18th century onwrds relates closely to the
world view of European,, & particularly British historians who provided d base. The
theories frequently reflected political n ideological interests of Europe.
Investigation into Indias past began wid d wrk of Indologists such as Jones,
Colebrook etc who were employed by the East India Co.. they were also interested in
philology n used d opportunity to expertise in this area. The study of Sanskrit not only
gave shape to discipline of comparative philology bt becam a source material for
reconstruction of ancient Indian history.
Vedic Sanskrit was particularly of grt importance & was uded xtensively in d
reconstruction of both Indian n Eropean past as d linguistic connection b/w d 2 had
alrdy been established.
Inevitably those who were sympathetic to Indian culture tended to romanticize the
ancient Indian history. The traditional Indian historical writing wid its emphasis on
historical biographies n chronicles were largely ignored.

THE ARYAN RACE THEORY (BY MAX MULLER)

Developed in 19th century. D word arya,which occurred in both Iranian Avestan &
vedic Sanskrit texts was given a racial connotation, as referring to d race of Aryans.
They were described as physically different from d indigenous population who spoke
indo-european language.
They invaded northern India in d 2nd millennium BC, conquered indigenous pple n
established the vedic Aryan culture which subsequently becam d foundation of Indian
culture.
Max Muller introduced the word 'Arya' into the English and European usage as
applying to a racial and linguistic group when propounding the Aryan Racial theory.
However, In Vedic Literature, the word Arya is nowhere defined in connection with
either race or language. Instead it refered to: gentleman, good-natured, righteous
person, noble-man, and is often used like 'Sir' or 'Shree' before the name of a person
like Aryaputra, Aryakanya, etc. this wud be 1 who spoke Sanskrit & observed caste
regulations.
 The racial connotation may hav been due to counterposing of Arya wid Dasa in Rig
Veda where dasa is decribed as physically dissimilar to the arya; the racial identity
being preserved by forbidding inter-caste marriage b/w dem.
The term varna, associalted wid color & occurring as a technical term referring to the
caste organization of the society also supported ART.
CRITQUES

The validity of AIT is seriously challenged and it stands totally untenable. The most
weird aspect of the AIT is that it has its origin not in any Indian records (no where in
any of the ancient Indian scriptures or epics or Puranas, etc. is there any mention of
this AIT), but in European politics and German nationalism of 19th century.
AIT has no support either in Indian literature, tradition, science, or not even in any of
the south Indian (Dravidians, inhabitants of south India, who were supposed to be the
victims of the so-called Aryan invasion) literature and tradition. So a product of
European politics of the 19th century was forced on Indian history only to serve the
imperialist policy of British colonialists to divide the Indian society on ethnic and
religious lines in order to continue their reign on the one hand and accentuate the
religious aims of Christian missionaries on the other.
It is a known fact that most of the original proponents of AIT were not historians or
archaeologists but administrative professionals they were in fact had been paid by the
East India Company to further its colonial aims.
Further, if it is assumed that the so-called Aryans invaded the townships in the
Harappa valley and destroyed its habitants and their civilization, there r no evidences
dat they occupied their cities. The excavations of these sites indicate that the
townships were abandoned.
Further, if the Harappan civilization had a Dravidian origin, who were allegedly
pushed down to the south by Aryans, Aryan-Dravidian divide in the respective
literatures and historical traditions hav been found. The North and South have never
been known to be culturally hostile to each other. Prior to the descent of British on
Indian scene, there was a continuous interaction and cultural exchange between the
two regions.
 ORIENTAL DESPOTISM

The genesis of this theory goes back to the Greco-Persian antagonism, wid references
in Greek writings to d despotic govt. of d Persians.
To this was added d vision of luxuries of d oriental courts, built partly on on d luxury
of trade wid d east n partly on fantacy of wrld of oriental crts as described in d
accounts of visitors to these regions lyk Megasthenes @ d Mauryan crt.
Owing to d continuance of empires in Asia in d 18th century, the focus was now
shifted frm d doings of d despotic to d despotic govt. the central ques. Was seen as dat
of pvt. Property in land, & d state ownership of land. The ambassadors & visitors to
mughal india such as Roe maintained dat there was an absence of the right to pvt.
Property in land.
Even Marx, who was famous for for his dialectical movement characterized Asia wid
a absence of change, & wrked d theory into his model for Asian society-Asiatic mode
of Production; where d absence of pvt property was central to this model.
The structure was a pyramid, wid king @ d apex, & self-sufficient village
communities @ base. The wealth of the oriental crts came frm collecting surplus frm
d cultivation. Cntrl over peasant communities was maintained by the state monopoly
of the irrigation system.
The unchanging nature of the society is central to the theory of Oriental Despotism.
The span of Indian history was seen as one long stretch of empire wid an occasion
change of dynasty.

CRITIQUE

In re-examining OD, evidences provide for an alternative analysis.

The socio-legal texts, the dharmashastras, Arthashastra discuss the laws and
regulations for the sale, bequest n inheritance of land n other forms of property. Many
inscriptions of d period after 500 AD, on stone etc. have recorded s grant of land by d
king or to a secular official in lieu of services rendered to d king.
They have also becum the basic source of material for studying agrarian structure of d
1st millennium AD. They were legal grants n hence hav been recorded in detail.
Besides, the person to whom d property was transferred, from whom it was
transferred, location of d land etc. were also recorded.
The reference to wastelands possibly indicate the gradual extension of the agrarian
economy into new areas. This info is imp also for those who are concerned with the
study of history of religion.; for the extension of the agrarian economy was generally
accompanied either by Buddhist missions or by brahmana settlements, thru which
vedic Sanskrit was introduced into new areas and local culture of these areas was
assimilated to the sanskrit tradition which in turn was a necessary process in d
delineation of Indian culture.
 Many records provide for rise of high status families, demand of new new
professions, which evolved into castes.
The notion of centralized bureaucracy was important in the model. However the
bureaucratic system of ancient India was rarely centralized, except in the frequent
periods of empire. Otherwise most levels of administration was filled by local pple.
During many centuries of small kingdoms, income from revenue was distributed
among a large no. elite grps, which in part explains the regional variations n
distribution in art styles, where patron was not a distant emperor bt d local king.
The other mechanisms of control according to the theory was a belief in the divinity
of kingship which gave the king a religious and psychological authority additional to
the political.
However the interrelation between divinity and political authority was never absolute
in ancient India. Divinity was bestowed on a variety of animate and inanimate objects.
The kings of the Mauryan empire denied any existence of God and ignored the notion
of divinity. The appeal to divinity was used merely for social validation.
One of the striking refutations of an aspect of Oriental Despotism has been that
involving the absence of urban centres. The evidence for an early continuous urban
economy has been pinpointed by archeological excavation. This, combined wid
literary sources suggests significant variations in the nature of urbanization.
The cities of Indus civilization were smaller concentrations of populations as
compared to those of 2nd urbanization, linked with iron technology & which evolved
in the Ganges valley in d 1st millennium BC. Use of coins showed trade and growth of
exchange.
At another level attempts have been made to correlate certain religious movements to
d needs of urban grps. The work on the rise n spread of Buddhism n Jainism in
relation to the mercantile community has inspired a wider debate on the aspects of
bhakti movement as being a part of religion of the urban centres.

The Indian historians motivated ideologically by the national movement for

independence approved the ART bt oppsed Oriental Despotism. The ART was
acceptable as it was believed to be based on the philological evidence. Perhaps this
was also to imply dat Indians were as same as Europeans and belonged to d same
race, which gave thm a sense of pride. The coming of the Europeans was seen as
reunion of parted cousins.

Supplemntary

It has long been maintained that the Indians were an a-historical pple, since there was
no recognizable historical writing from the Indian tradition similar to dat from Greece
& China. This was partly bcoz the Indian historical tradition (itihasa purana) was not
 easily recognizable to those familiar with Greek historical writing. Another reason
may hav been the inability of modern scholars to perceive n concede the awareness of
change.
The early historical tradition is now receiving the attention of historians and is being
analyzed in terms of its ideological content. For instance, the unit of history is not the
empire but janapada, territory settled by tribe, which later evolves to a state.
Political power was a relatively open area in early Indian society & the social
antecedents of the founders of dynasties were rarely questioned, as long as they
compiled wid d procedures necessary for legitimizing political authority.
In the Buddhist tradition the unit of history was the Sangha or Buddhist church and d
monastic chronicles formed d core of d tradition.
Cyclic time and the change implicit in d movement of the cycle was d cosmological
reflection of the consciousness of change. The records of the later part of the 1st
millennium BC includes detail events relating to political authority. This new
development in the tradition coincides wid actual historical chnge, characterized by
small kingdoms generally conforming to the geographically nucear regions. These
were based on a decentralized administration n economic structure and d emergence
of the devotional religion- the bhakti movement which thru its appeal to large cross-
section social grps n use of regional language strengthened regional focus.

The perspective of the ancient Indian historical tradition wen seen in juxtaposition wid the
more recent analysis of early Indian history can suggest the ideological concerns of the pre-
colonial period. These myt provide to d historian of early india a clearer vision of the
priorities of the Indian past than have been provided by the polemics of more recent times.