07-14-2007, 06:35 PM
Indian history still under seize
As is well known, the study of Indian history in modern times began in the late 18th century when the country was under colonial control. Most of the early workers in the field were Europeans who were grounded naturally in European view of history based on Greek historical tradition with little or no knowledge of Indian tradition of historiography. While credit must be given to them for laying the foundation of historical, archaeological and epigraphical studies on India, the overall impact of the history written in the colonial era proved to be extremely disastrous for the country. <span style='color:red'>Several myths were created and perpetuated by historians of the colonial era as, for example:
· The ancient Indians had no sense of history;
· The forefathers of all Indians, barring those of a few so-called âaboriginalsâ, had come here from outside;
· The âAryansâ were barbarous nomadic people who invaded and destroyed the then existing Dravidian civilization in the Indus Valley forcing its inhabitants to move towards south;
· Indian history has three main periods: Hindu, Muslim and British; and each period had started with invasion or arrival of a more powerful people from outside; etc.
Since independence, the political circumstances in the country have been such that historians of Marxist leanings have constantly dominated the field of Indian historical studies except for a short break when Bharatiya Janata Party was in power. Though they have given a new face to Indian history by their interpretations based on Marxist doctrine of dialectical materialism (that in itself is a mix of Hegel and British economics), they have remained as anti-Vedic as were most of the historians of the colonial era. They repeatedly talk of the triad feudalism, capitalism and socialism in context of Indian history too, but never seriously consider a revision of the British periodization of Indian history. They remain contended with the cosmetic change in the nomenclatures from Hindu, Muslim and British to ancient, medieval and modern.
However, unfortunate is not what they did not do or could not do as yet, but what they have actually done so far. They have enthusiastically perpetuated the myths created by the colonial historians besides adding several new ones. They are definitely better than their colonial counterparts in theoretical sophistication, which greatly enhances their damaging capacity. In fact, they have kept Indian history under seize by fabricating âfactsâ and imposing wrong concepts. It is only recently, with rediscovery of the Vedic river Sarasvat⦠that their hold on Indian history has started loosening.
</span>
As is well known, the study of Indian history in modern times began in the late 18th century when the country was under colonial control. Most of the early workers in the field were Europeans who were grounded naturally in European view of history based on Greek historical tradition with little or no knowledge of Indian tradition of historiography. While credit must be given to them for laying the foundation of historical, archaeological and epigraphical studies on India, the overall impact of the history written in the colonial era proved to be extremely disastrous for the country. <span style='color:red'>Several myths were created and perpetuated by historians of the colonial era as, for example:
· The ancient Indians had no sense of history;
· The forefathers of all Indians, barring those of a few so-called âaboriginalsâ, had come here from outside;
· The âAryansâ were barbarous nomadic people who invaded and destroyed the then existing Dravidian civilization in the Indus Valley forcing its inhabitants to move towards south;
· Indian history has three main periods: Hindu, Muslim and British; and each period had started with invasion or arrival of a more powerful people from outside; etc.
Since independence, the political circumstances in the country have been such that historians of Marxist leanings have constantly dominated the field of Indian historical studies except for a short break when Bharatiya Janata Party was in power. Though they have given a new face to Indian history by their interpretations based on Marxist doctrine of dialectical materialism (that in itself is a mix of Hegel and British economics), they have remained as anti-Vedic as were most of the historians of the colonial era. They repeatedly talk of the triad feudalism, capitalism and socialism in context of Indian history too, but never seriously consider a revision of the British periodization of Indian history. They remain contended with the cosmetic change in the nomenclatures from Hindu, Muslim and British to ancient, medieval and modern.
However, unfortunate is not what they did not do or could not do as yet, but what they have actually done so far. They have enthusiastically perpetuated the myths created by the colonial historians besides adding several new ones. They are definitely better than their colonial counterparts in theoretical sophistication, which greatly enhances their damaging capacity. In fact, they have kept Indian history under seize by fabricating âfactsâ and imposing wrong concepts. It is only recently, with rediscovery of the Vedic river Sarasvat⦠that their hold on Indian history has started loosening.
</span>