Politics Of Indian History -2

[Guest]

An interesting article !!

http://www.newindpress.com/sunday/colItems...C20030201075235

Columns by Nanditha Krishna

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Creations

The itihasa tradition

Modern Indian historians have, unfortunately, thrown out the baby with the bathwater. While they rightly reject the ‘fable’ element in earlier histories, they have also discarded the historical element in our oral literary traditions, thereby losing an important source of information

At a recent seminar in Chennai on ‘Writing History’, apolitical historians — those who are genuinely interested in the past, and not as a tool of political control — defined their vision of history. The seminar brought together primary, secondary and tertiary teachers of history, besides writers of history and of history textbooks, and other historians of a high academic calibre.

History must be based on fact, they all averred, not on individual reading of events: ‘‘Facts are sacred, comments are free’’. It should be objective, not motivated. It should be interesting, brief and crisp, with less names, dates and laborious information that have to be “mugged”.

The focus should shift to social, cultural and scientific developments, which are more interesting than the political, with greater emphasis on contemporary events. It must include local, state and national histories. Textbooks should be updated regularly to include new discoveries.

Good communication skills are essential for producing material that is both factual and interesting. Historical methodologies must be established, with the story element to create awareness and knowledge linked with analysis, utilizing computer simulation methodologies: “why” and “how” must be answered. If a student learns to analyze history, it will be a useful tool all his life.

Fifty years of motivated history made me wonder whether unbiased history is possible in India. Further, while Indian historians use literature as source material for social and economic systems, they do not accept the same literature as source material for events.

Although history started as a discipline in seventeenth century Europe, the Greek Herodotus is described as the first historian. However, in what seems like déjà vu, his contemporaries called him the ‘‘Father of Lies’’, believing that one could not write truthfully of contemporary events, till Cicero anointed him the ‘‘Father of History’’.

Medieval European mathematicians challenged history as having no methodology and therefore no knowledge base, lying in the “realm of imagination and memory”. But maths, after all, starts with assumptions, which are not limited to history. Different schools of historiography also appeared, such as the Annales and Marxist, right and left. History became open to interpretation, to be seen as the writer chose.

Contrary to popular belief, ancient India did have historical traditions. The Rig Veda refers to eulogies of rulers and sages — gathas (songs) and narashamshis (praises/genealogies of rulers and sages) sung during ceremonies. By the later Vedic period, three more historical genres had been added: akhyana (historical narratives), purana (ancient events) and itihasa (‘‘thus it happened’’).

Being oral traditions sung by priest-poets, the religious aspect invariably crept in. According to the Upanishads, three clans — the Angirasas, Bhrigus and Atharvanas — combined to develop the itihasa-purana tradition of historical writing, as opposed to drama and poetry which were regarded as the result of creative imagination.

The Ramayana and Mahabharata were also composed in the itihasa tradition, but it was the Bhrigu-angirasa contribution to the puranas that is considerable. The other historian group was that of the Sutas, court minstrels or bards, well versed in Vedic lore, of whom the most famous was Vyasa, the author of the Mahabharata. They used dance to narrate their stories, a fact mentioned by Bana and sculpted on a Sanchi bas-relief.

Historical narratives of ancient India consisted of important events arranged in the form of a story, to illustrate moral, spiritual and social truths. Royal glory is developed as the efforts of the king, with chronology used to order the sequence of actions rather than dates. The best example of the akhyana is the famous Harshacharita of Bana, who also praises the Mahabharata as the ideal itihasa.

To the historian of ancient India, history was more than a succession of events. The fulfillment of the purpose of human existence, the vagaries of destiny and the meaning of events in terms of the aim of life were paramount. Political intrigue, war and familial discord were impediments in the life of an individual who had to achieve a higher goal.

History was generally conveyed through biography. The Ramayana of Valmiki, Mahabharata of Vyasa, Harshacharita of Bana, Vikramankadevacharita of Bilhana, Rajatarangini of Kalhana, Mudrarakshasa of Vishakhadatta and Prithvirajavijaya (the story of Prithviraj Chauhan) of Jayanaka are some important biographical histories belonging to this genre. Rajasthani folk songs, describing the lives and achievements of local Rajput rulers (who are also given divine genealogies), also belong to this tradition. The books themselves give an idea of where fact ends and creativity begins. The Ramayana starts with Valmiki asking Narada to describe the perfect man. Narada narrates the story of Rama in four pages. Valmiki fills seven books!

The British, who first ‘‘wrote’’ and interpreted Indian history as we know it today, used Megasthenes’ Indica, or Alexander’s invasion, as the marker for the beginning of Indian history. To study Indian historical works from the European point of view presents several problems. European history is based on material culture and achievements, representing a total break with the earlier tradition. It is essential to understand the ancient Indian historian’s idea of history from the perspective of his environment and the world he lived in, and to translate it, thereafter, into contemporary language.

Unfortunately, the modern Indian historian threw out the baby with the bathwater. While he rightly rejects the ‘‘fable’’ element in earlier histories, he also discards the historical element, thereby losing an important source of information. Indian tradition has always distinguished between the philosophical and spiritual shrutis, the socially binding smritis, the literary kavyas and the historical itihasas, never crossing the line. Kalidasa’s works, for example, are never considered to be itihasa in spite of heroes and heroines taken from history.

Indian itihasa must be understood in the larger context of Indian culture, in that kings were expected to fulfill a divinely ordained role, and their lives interpreted in that tradition. By overlooking the historical process in the development of tradition, there is the danger of losing its significance. The modern historian celebrates historical consciousness, while the ancient and medieval historian lived in an ideal world, steeped in Vedic culture and based on the authority of the ‘‘revealed’’ word. Historical events of the past were located with reference to their contemporary values. Few contemporary historians read original sources, lacking knowledge of Sanskrit and Tamil, both essential for the study of ancient India.

An older tradition need not necessarily be more authentic than a later one, although it would definitely recall more ancient traditions. The Vishnu Purana may be much later than the Mahabharata, but its descriptions of the events of Krishna’s life are no less authentic.

Contemporary Indian historians have neglected to study the process that transmutes fact into myth and, thereby, to separate myth from fact, history from fable. The historical process reveals itself through the haze of myth and legend. For example, tales of animal incarnations and battles between man and animal would reflect an age of totemic wars, while divine origins were created to establish legitimacy to rule.

We need a history of India that is not constantly attacked for its authenticity or interpretation. We have to understand that a different age produced a different type of history, but facts do not change. The divinity of Rama may be based on faith, but his existence is based on the literary evidence of itihasa. We have a strong literary tradition; if we cannot trust that, what do we have left?

Archaeological discoveries are changing perceptions, but few historians are studying them. We must produce one single, consistent history. While students must appreciate the wonder that was India, they must also criticize the inadequacies and mistakes. We must not end up with textbooks that praise a crook like Robert Clive, yet doubt the existence of Rama, King of Ayodhya.


Nanditha Krishna is Director, C P Ramaswami Aiyar Foundation and can be reached at nankrishna@vsnl.com