Nandhitha Babuji BA 1 1

203606064

Subject: Understanding the Past

Subject Code: HUM119
Instructor: Dr. Neha Chatterji
Semester and Year: Year 1 Semester 1
Program: BA Humanities
Name: Nandhitha Babuji
Roll Number: 203606064

Question : We often argue that historical narratives are subjective constructions of the past by
historians.

-- Is history, then, the same as myth? Are historical narratives different from literary
narratives?

This paper attempts to distinguish literature from history in the context of Indian

colonization. In the wake of being called ahistorical, Indians begin to question if they really

had no consciousness of the self or history. Romila Thapar explores inevokes The Ithihasa

Purana as a way of engaging with the past, but it isn’t accepted as ‘historical’. The paper tries

to answer the questions, ‘Why is it not historical? What is then the historical way of

engaging with the past?’

History is distinctly a 19th century concept. The British made several accusations

about how India was engaging with the past. Post the Enlightenment, accusations came from

a Eurocentric perspective where the Occident was superior, by their rationality and

modernity, to the Orient. British viewed India as a country without historical consciousness,

thereby lacking a sense of history. History was an absolute requirement for any civilization in

the 19th century mindset. The commentary upon India were the Orientalist and the Utilitarian

critiques. The Orientalist view focused on culture, literature and society. Orientalists
Nandhitha Babuji BA 1 2
203606064

deemed India of remaining in a stagnating culture. This was linked with the supposed

spirituality which contrastsed the materialistic West. The British tried to fit the Indian past

into a mould of history that was made post Enlightenment in Europe. The Utilitarian view

focused on economy, society and the presence/absence of sovereignty and statehood. The

Utilitarian critique focused on the lack of rational thought and individualism in India.

Individualism was vital for capitalism and market in Europe. The 19 th century was an age of

public opinion and democratic revolution1. India did not have these and the British

emphasised it well enough to spur spirits of nationalism in Indians. The British justification

of colonizing India was that they were giving India the ‘gift’ of History.

The history of India written by the British were called the “Administrator’s History”.

As E.H. Carr2 discusses in his essay titled ‘The Historian and his facts’ about the 19th century

fetishism with facts which was also reflected in the British history of India. As a result of

essentialisation of Indian culture, Sanskrit and Hinduism became the major source of the

British writings. Thus, the brahmans had excessive control of translating ancient Sanskrit

texts for the British. Upper caste references from books like the ‘Dharmashastra’ and

‘Manusmriti’ were extended over the entirety of Indian society. The resulting history writings

were hence far from reality. The British history writings utilised one key feature from the

Enlightenment, reliability of facts. Reliability of facts was not only taken via scriptures and

literature, but also via auxiliary disciplines. The auxiliary disciplines included archaeological

excavation, numismatics, and so on. These helped to accurately write dynastic and succession

histories. This was seen as a break from the Itihasa Purana Tradition which was not

considered as historical forms of engaging with the past. Instead, it was seen as literature

holding fables and tales. The new history the British wrote had a teleological narrative and

1
Romila Thapar, The History of Early India: from origins to AD 1300,1. (London, England: Penguin
India,2003),6.
2
E.H. Carr, what is History, 2. (Suffolk, England: Penguin Random House UK,2018):12.
Nandhitha Babuji BA 1 3
203606064

showed interest in progress. While newly English educated Indians accepted the British

methodologies, they still wanted to write their own histories without the interpretations of the

British3. The British History of India reflected the 19th century obsession with facts but lacked

aspects that were expected by the scientific notion of history which was beyond simply

collecting dates and facts. Regardless, the British perspective was seminal to future

perspectives of Indian history. Current day Indian history and historiography reflects these

ideals and this paper attempts to explain the ‘historical’ forms of engaging with the past.

Considering the British accusations, one must question; ‘How is it that Indians had no

consciousness of self at all? Why are the other ways of writings about the past not considered

historical? Did India engage with the past at all? If so how?’. Romila Thapar in her writings

upon the ‘Ithihasa Purana Traditions’ shows the presence of consciousness in ancient Indian

writings. Yet the writings simply did not adhere to acceptable forms of scientific history. She

shows this consciousness via historical traditions. Historical traditions represent some events

presumed to have happened, that are maintained in some sort of record and maintained

through time4. They have a social function of showing the past society. The past explains the

present and thus gains legitimacy and relevance in the present. Historical traditions have two

forms of containing information, i.e., embedded history and externalised history. The

embedded history are myths and epics, from where one needs to extract information. The

externalised history is of biographies and chronicles where the information is already

extracted and hence is closer to forms of historical writings. The most embedded form of

history is myths. Myths can reflect society and change which become vital in understandings

ancient India. Embedded forms slowly become externalised and thus historical consciousness

is visible. Externalised forms such as Vamsavali show three key features that are in scientific

3
Thapar, “History of Early India,”16.
4
Romila Thapar, The Past Before Us: Historical Traditions of Early North India, (London, England: Harvard
University Press, 2013): 4.
Nandhitha Babuji BA 1 4
203606064

history as well; 1) linear time, 2) chronology, 3) causation. Vamsavali shows succession and

chronicles of dynasties. It holds a historical core that can be verified with inscriptions, which

distinguishes it from the embedded form 5. Romila Thapar6 states in her book ‘ The Past

Before Us’, ‘history here is born as tradition and not as having to be built from source

material’. This statement shows key difference between Ithihasa Purana engaging with the

past as compared to scientific history, since scientific history is based on source material.

While historical consciousness is present, Ithihasa Purana way of engaging with the past is

not considered ‘historical’. English educated Indians wanting to write their own history raised

the questions of ‘what is the “historical” way of engaging with the past?’ ‘How can Indians

write scientific history?’ ‘Should they engage with the Ithihasa Purana, or consider it as

literature and fictious writings?’

E.H. Carr’s ‘What is History’ explains scientific history and its expectations. In his

chapter ‘History, Science and Morality’, Carr shows how Charles Darwin’s theory of

evolution was vital in bringing history into the sciences. Science was the major backdrop of

the 19th and 20th century and history was in contemplation whether it fit with the sciences or if

it was closer to literature. History was coming out of the 19 th century obsession of facts and

was moving onto using terms like ‘hypothesis’ which increased the scope of the subject. E.H

Carr states how a physicist in a BBC broadcast defined scientific truth as ‘a statement which

has been publicly accepted by experts’ 7. Similarly, Professor Barraclough states that history

is ‘not factual at all, but a series of accepted judgements.’ The similarity of the statements is

striking. Thus, scientific history began to follow rationality and reason. How do we place the

information of the past into these ideals? E. H. Carr in his first chapter, ‘The Historian and

His Facts’ , raises a crucial point; ‘Not all facts are historical facts’ 8. As Professor
5
Romila Thapar, “Society and Historical Consciousness,” in Situating Indian History for Sarvepalli Gopal.
Sabyasachi Bhattacharya, Romila Thapar, (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1986), 383.
6
Thapar, “ Past before Us,” 11.
7
Carr, “What is History,”56 – 57.
8
Carr, “What is History,”10.
Nandhitha Babuji BA 1 5
203606064

Barraclough states, facts must be widely accepted; but what are the other aspects of a

historical fact? To be historical facts, they must hold insights of the past, must be relevant to

the present, and must move it towards the future. While the facts must be relevant, their

accuracy is vital too. Carr uses the auxiliary disciplines to reach the accuracy. Accuracy is

key as Carr emphasises on the ‘truth’ that is nestled between ‘fact’ and ‘value’; it shouldn’t

become a collection of facts, neither should it become value laden moral fables. History

should not show ‘what ought to happen’ but rather must show ‘what happened’ and utilise it

in the present and future. Significance must also be given to the ideals of progress and

causation to ask the questions of Why and How of ‘history’.

In the chapter ‘Widening Horizons’, Carr explains how beyond simple reason, history

becomes something that man actively shapes and reshapes 9. This is apt in understanding how

nationalist writings conformed to these ideals of scientific history in their discourse of

modern Indian history. In the mid nineteenth century, historical research shifted from

collecting evidence to explaining the past. Historical research extended into economics,

social anthropology, archaeology to name a few disciplines. History began to interact with

other disciplines and their histories as well. Romila Thapar states aptly that history was

becoming less about the reconstruction of the past and more about making the past

intelligible10. This did not mean that the interest in facts was reduced, for, source material and

artefacts were still foundational. Similarly, early historian writings were not dismissed.

Chronology became the core historical framework that held facts and dates central for

engaging with the past. Newer research methods using linguistics, computer and statistical

applications evolved. History was also tied to geographical evidences such as changing river

courses and crop patterns. Nationalist history writings were more focused on creating the

story of ancient glory and the struggle for independence. However Modern Indian

9
Carr, “What is History,”131.
10
Thapar, “History of Early India,” 27.
Nandhitha Babuji BA 1 6
203606064

Historiography has expanded to include these ideals of scientific history. Though history has

spread across many disciplines, unlike literature, its core of chronology gives it reliability.

This paper has contrasted the Ithihasa Purana tradition with the ‘historical’ way of

engaging with the past. While the Ithihasa Purana tradition shows historical consciousness, its

method of historical writings does not follow methods of scientific history. It is built from the

tradition and not from a base of reliable facts. The Ithihasa Purana tradition is in ambiguity

with facts and fable. While embedded history can be externalised, it remains unclear if the

stain of imagination is removed. Ithihasa Purana has open ended epics fuelled by imagination

that resembles morality tales set in a timeless setting. History is not timeless ; it shows

lessons that are used in present time and speaks of specific instances of the future. The

chronological framework of historical traditions is approximate and may not carry dates 11.

Though it engages with the past, it doesn’t adhere to the ideals of the scientific history in the

‘historical’ engagement with the past. This paper has contrasted the form and function of the

two ways of engaging with the past. History understands causation, looks towards progress

while holding reliability (i.e., testable methods) in collecting information. Contrastingly,

Ithihasa Purana tradition, while reflecting ancient past, is still mostly morality tales and

fables. Thus, this paper has drawn the line of distinction between scientific history and the

literary narrative spun by the Ithihasa Purana Tradition.

11
Thapar, “Past Before Us,”84.
Nandhitha Babuji BA 1 7
203606064

Bibliography

Carr, E.H. What is History, 2. Suffolk, England: Penguin Random House UK,2018.

Thapar, Romila. The History of Early India: from origins to AD 1300,1. London, England:

Penguin India,2003.

Thapar, Romila. The Past Before Us: Historical Traditions of Early North India. London,

England: Harvard University Press, 2013.

Thapar, Romila. “Society and Historical Consciousness,” in Situating Indian History for

Sarvepalli Gopal, edited by Sabyasachi Bhattacharya and Romila Thapar, 353 – 383.

New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1986.

Word count without footnotes and Bibliography: 1719.