Ideology and The Interpretation of Early Indian History

Review (Fernand Braudel Center)
Research Foundation of State University of New York
Ideology and the Interpretation of Early Indian History

Author(s): Romila Thapar
Source: Review (Fernand Braudel Center), Vol. 5, No. 3 (Winter, 1982), pp. 389-411
Published by: Research Foundation of State University of New York for and on behalf of the
Fernand Braudel Center
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40240911
Accessed: 13-12-2015 01:17 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Review (Fernand Braudel Center), Fernand Braudel Center and Research Foundation of State University of New
York are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Review (Fernand Braudel Center).
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 192.54.242.155 on Sun, 13 Dec 2015 01:17:16 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Review,V, 3, Winter1982,389-411
Ideologyand the
of
Interpretation
EarlyIndian History*
RomilaThapar
It is sometimessaid thatthe interpretationsof theancient

periodsof historyhave littlehistoriographical interest,since
theyreferto timestoo distantforan ideologicalconcernto
have much meaningforcontemporary society,and thatthe
sparseness of theevidencedoes not providemuchmarginfor
ideologicaldebate.Thisviewwould not,however,be validfor
the interpretation of early Indian history,where both the
colonial experienceand the nationalismof recentcenturies
have influencedstudy,particularly of theearlyperiodof his-
tory.
In Europe, post-Renaissanceinterests, whichinitiatedthe
extensivestudyof theancientworld,broughtto thisstudythe
ideologicalconcernsof theirown times.1These concernsare
also reflectedin the historiographyof India,2if not of Asia.
The interpretation of Indian historyfrom the eighteenth
centuryonwardrelatescloselyto theworldviewofEuropean,
♦Originallyappearedin Societyand Changes:Essaysin Honor ofSachin Chaudhuri,
1977; reprintedwithpermissionof the publishers.
1. Momigliano(1966) discussessome of these.
2. See Philips(1961) and Thapar(1968). For a comparativestudy,see Hall(1961)
and Soedjatmoko(1965).
© 1982 ResearchFoundationof SUNY
3o"
390 Romila Thapar
and particularlyBritish,historians,who providedthe initial

historiographical base. The resultingtheoriesfrequently re*
fleeted,whetherconsciouslyor not,thepoliticaland ideolog-
ical interests
ofEurope.The history ofIndia becameone ofthe
means of propagatingthose interests.Traditional Indian
historicalwriting,withitsemphasison historicalbiographies
and chronicles,was largelyignored.European writingon
Indian historywas an attemptto create a freshhistorical
tradition.The historiographical patternof the Indian past
whichtook shape duringthecolonial periodin theeighteenth
and nineteenth centurieswas probablysimilarto thepatterns
whichemergedin the historiesof othercolonial societies.
Investigation intotheIndianpastbeganwiththeworkofthe
Orientalistsor Indologists - mainlyEuropean scholarswho
had made India, and particularly Indianlanguages,theirarea
of study.The majorityof the Indologists,and certainlythe
great names among them, such as William Jones, H.T.
Colebrooke, and H.H. Wilson, were employedby the East
India Companyin variousadministrative capacities.Trained,
as manyofthemwere,intheclassicaltraditionofEurope,they
werealso familiarwiththerecentinterest inphilologyand used
theopportunity to acquireexpertiseina newarea. As adminis-
tratorstheyrequireda specializedknowledgeof traditional
Indian law, politics,society,and religion,whichinevitably led
themto theliterature in Sanskritand Persian.Thus,scholarly
and administrative interestscoalesced.
The nineteenth centurysaw the development,not onlyof
thesestudiesin India, but also theintroduction of coursesin
Orientallanguagesat variousEuropeanuniversities and else-
where.3The termIndologistnow came to includethosewho
had a purelyacademicinterest in India and who wereintellec-
tually curious about the Indian past. The studyof Sanskrit
language and literature not onlygave shapeto thedisciplineof
comparativephilology,butalso providedthesourcematerial
forthe reconstruction of ancientIndiansociety.Vedic Sansk-
rit,thelanguageoftheVedicliterature in particular,
was used
3. See Staal (1972).
Ideologyand EarlyIndian History 391
extensivelyin the reconstruction of both Indian and Indo-

European society,sincethelinguisticconnectionbetweenthe
two had been established.It was now possibleforscholarsof
Sanskritto attemptwide-ranging interpretations of whatwas
believedto be thebeginnings with
ofIndianhistory, littleorno
personalexperienceof the Indian reality.One of the most
influential ofsuchscholarsin histimewas Max MUller,whose
fulland appreciativedescriptions ofcontemporary Indianvil-
lage communities would hardlyhave led one to suspectthathe
had nevervisitedIndia. Inevitably thosewhoweresympathetic
to Indian culturetendedto romanticizethe ancientIndian
past.These interpretations carriedtheimageryand theprecon-
not
ceptions, only of thesources,butalso ofthoseinterpreting
them.
By farthemostinfluential theoryto emergefromIndologi-
cal studiesin the nineteenthcenturywas the theoryof the
Aryanrace. The wordârya,whichoccursin boththeIranian
Avestanand Vedic Sanskrittexts,was givena racialconnota-
tion as referring to the race of the Aryans.The Aryanswere
describedas physicallydifferent fromtheindigenouspopula-
tion, and their culturaldistinctivenesswas apparentfromthe
fact that theyspoke Indo-Europeanlanguage.It was held
an
that large numbersof aryans,describedas a branchof the
Indo-Europeanrace and language group,invaded northern
India inthesecondmillennium B.C., conqueredtheindigenous
peoples, and established the Vedic Aryan culture which
became the foundation of Indian culture.
The identification of languageand race was seen to be a
fallacyevenduringthelifetime ofMax MUller,one ofthemore
activeproponentsofthetheory.4 Althoughinhislaterwritings
he rejectedthisidentification,it was by thentoo late,and the
idea had takenroot.It is curiousthat"âryan"shouldhavebeen
interpreted in racialtermssincein thetextsit refersmerelyto
an honoredpersonof highstatus,and, in the Vedic context,
thiswould be one who spoke Sanskritand observedthecaste
oftheterm"arya",see Bailey
4. See Leopold (1974). For variousinterpretations
(1959). Thieme(1938) has arguedthatthe termrefersto "foreigner"or "stranger".
392 Romila Thapar
regulations.The racial connotationmayhave been due to the

counterposingof ârya withdâsa, in the Rg Veda, wherethe
dasa is describedas physically dissimilarto theârya.5Thiswas
as
interpreted representing two racial typeswiththe aryas
evolving later intothe three uppercastesand thedâsa remain-
ing the lowest,sudra caste. The racial identityof each was
preservedby the prohibitionof intermarriage betweenthe
castes.The preeminence oftheâryawas explainedas due to the
successful conquestofthedosas bytheâryas.The term"varna",
etymologicallyassociatedwithcolorand occurring as a techni-
cal termreferring to thecasteorganizationofsociety,was used
as yetanotherargument to supporttheAryantheoryofrace.It
was believedto providea "scientific"explanationforcaste,
namely,that the four main castes representedmajor racial
groups, whose racial identitywas preservedby forbidding
intermarriage and makingbirththe sole criterionfor caste
status.The latterhalfofthenineteenth centuryin Europesaw
thediscussionon racein thetheoriesofGobineauand growing
interest in social evolution.Some oftheIndologistswerebyno
means unfamiliarwiththisdebate.6The distinctionbetween
âryanand non-âryan, and thepolarityofAryanand Dravidian
suggestedby themforthe Indian scene,echoes,to a degree
which can hardly be regardedas coincidental,the aryan-
nonaryandistinction and theAryan-Semitic dichotomybased
on languageand race in the Europeancontext.The suggested
social bifurcation is also remarkably similar.The uppercastes
werethe âryansand the lowercastes werethe nonâryans.
The beliefin the Indo-Europeanoriginsof bothEuropean
and Indiansocietiesintensified interest
inVedicâryansources,
sincethesewereseenas theearliestsurvivalsofa commonpast.
The villagecommunity ofVedicsocietywas lookeduponas the
rediscovery of the roots of ancientEuropean society.It was
describedas an idylliccommunityof gentle,passive people
given to meditationand other-worldly thoughtswith an
5. See Rg Veda 2.20.8; 2.12.4; 3.34.9; 1.33.4;4.16.3; 5.29.10; 10.22.8.

6. See Poliakov(1974).
absenceofaggressionand competition.7 Possiblysomeofthese

scholars,well disposedtowardIndia, wereseekingan escape
intoa Utopiadistantintimeand place,perhapsfleeingfromthe
bewilderingchanges overtakingthem in their own times.
OthersweredefendingIndian societyfromitscritics.Eventu-
allytheAryantheoryofracegavewayto whathas cometo be
called the Aryanproblem,namely,the historicalrole of the
Indo-Aryan-speaking people and theiridentification in early
Indian sources.
Buttheearlynineteenth centurysaw a newdirectionin the
attitude of the administrator-scholars of the East India
Company toward Indian history. Some, althoughtheydid not
romanticize the ancient Indian past,were nevertheless sympa-
theticin theirinterpretations. Others,in increasingnumbers,
becamecriticalofwhattheycalledthevaluesofancientIndian
society.This was in part due to the mountingproblemsof
governinga vast colony with an unfamiliar,if not alien,
culture.The natureof the relationshipbetweenBritainand
India was also undergoingchange as tradingstationswere
replacedbycolonialmarkets.The majorintellectual influence,
however, was that of English Utilitarian philosophy.James
Mill, its first ideologue in the context of Indian history,
completedhis lengthyHistoryof BritishIndia in the early
decadesofthenineteenth century.Mill's Historyclaimedto be
a criticalinvestigation of thetraditionalinstitutions of India.
These, by the standards of nineteenth-century Utilitarianism,
were found to be static, retrogressive, and conducive to
economicbackwardness.Mill recommendeda radicalalerta-
tionof Indiansociety,to be achievedby imposingthecorrect
legaland administrative systemin India. Boththeanalysisand
the solutionsuggestedby Mill suitedthe aims and needs of
imperialrequirements.Mill's History,therefore,became a
textbookon India at theHaileyburyCollegewheretheBritish
officersof the Indian Civil Serviceweretrained.
Furtherintellectual supportforthisviewof thepremodern
historyof India was found in thewritings ofthemoreeminent
7. See MUHer(1883, lOlff.).
394 Romila Thapar
philosophersof historyof the time. Hegel, for example,

remarkedon the absence of dialectical change in Indian
history,and consequentlydismissedIndian civilizationas
being static, despotic in its orientation,and outside the
mainstreamof relevantworldhistory.8
Centralto thisviewof thepremodernhistoryof India,and
implicitin Mill's History,was the theoryof orientaldespo-
tism.9The genesisofthistheoryprobablygoes backto Greco-
Persian antagonism,withreferences in Greekwritingto the
despoticgovernment of the Persians. To thiswas added the
vision of the luxuriesof the Orientalcourts,a vision built
partlyon theluxurytradewiththeEast fromearlytimesand
partlyon thefantasyworldof Orientalcourtsas describedin
the accounts of visitorsto these regions,such as those of
Ktesiasat the Persiancourtand Megasthenesat theMauryan
courtin India. The Crusadesand theensuingliterature on the
Turks doubtlessstrengthened the notionof the all-powerful,
despotic,Orientalpotentate.Wheninterestin thenotionwas
revived in the eighteenthcenturyas an explanation for
continuing empiresin Asia, thefocuswas shiftedfromtheacts
of the despot to the natureof the despoticstate. Given the
concerns of eighteenth-century France and England, the
centralquestionwas seen as thatof privatepropertyin land
and thestateownershipofland.10Once again,theaccountsof
ambassadors and visitorsto Mughal India such as Thomas
Roe and Francois Bernierwerequoted,and theymaintained
thattherightto privateproperty in land did notexist.11
Some,
like Montesquieu,acceptedthetheoryof Orientaldespotism;
others,like Voltaire,doubted the correctnessof its assump-
tions. By the mid-nineteenth centuryit had such currencyin
Britainthatagainthestandardtexton thetraditional economy
of India usedat HaileyburyCollegewas thatofRichardJones,
who endorsedthe theory.Inevitablythe major historiansof
8. See Hegel (1857).

9. See Koebner(1951) and Venturi(1963).
10. See Thorner(1966, 33ff.).
11. See Roe (1926) and Bernier(1699).
Ideologyand EarlyIndianHistory 395
thelatenineteenth century inIndia,whoalso happenedto be
theadministrators, assumedthecorrectness ofthetheory as a
precondition to their understanding of the Indianpast. Even
Marx,despitehisconcernfordialectical movement, wasnot
averseto theideawithitsemphasis on a staticsocietyandan
absenceofchange,and workedthetheory intohismodelfor
Asiansociety-thatoftheAsiaticmodeofproduction.12
The absenceofprivateproperty inlandwascentral to this
modelofsocialandeconomic structure. The structure
was seen
in the formof a pyramid, withthe kingat theapex and
isolatedvillagecommunities
self-sufficient, at thebase. The
surplus was collectedfrom thecultivators bythebureaucracy,
andtheprocess of redistributionled to itsbeingappropriated,
bythekingand thecourt-hencethefabulous
substantially,
wealthof Orientalcourts.Controloverthe peasantcom-
munitieswas maintainedby the state monopolyof the
irrigationsystem-or the hydraulic machinery, as a more
recentauthor has called it13-the control over which was
crucialinaridlandsdependent onartificial The
irrigation. sub-
servienceofthepeasantcommunities wasensured, notonlyby
extractingthemaximum surplusfrom them, butalsobyinvest-
ingtheking with absolute and
powers divinity. Theisolation of
socialgroupswasmademorecomplete by the absenceof urban
centers and effectivenetworks oftrade.
Theidealization ofthevillagecommunity from onegroupof
scholarswas now juxtaposedwiththe starknessof those
supporting theotherinterpretation. This historical
kaleido-
scopewasreadjusted whena thirdperspective wasintroduced
at thebeginning ofthetwentieth century. The authorsofthis
perspectivewereIndianhistorians usingthecurrent method-
ology, butmotivated ideologicallyby the nationalmovement
forindependence, scholars whohavebeenreferred toinrecent
writings as the nationalist historians.14 Of the two major
12. See Gunawardana(1976).

13. See Wittfogel
(1957).
14. See, for example, Jayaswal (1924), Mookerji (1926), and Raichaudhury
(1923).
396 Romila Thapar
theories,theAryantheoryofracehad theirapproval,whereas
thatof Orientaldepostismwas opposed forobviousreasons.
The formerwas acceptablefor a numberof reasons.It was
believed to be based on the most up-to-datephilological
evidence.Its supposed "scientific"explanationforcaste was
in viewofthegeneralcondemnation
gratifying, ofcastesociety
fromthestalwartsofegalitarianism. Homo hierarchicus, ifone
may borrow the phrase,stood exonerated. The depictionof
in
Aryansociety glowing terms was soothing to thesensitivities
of Indian scholarship.There was also the appeal to some
middle-classIndians that the comingof the Englishrepre-
sented"a reunionof partedcousins,the descendentsof two
differentfamiliesof the ancientAryanrace."15
Nationalisthistoricalwritingtook up the theme,among
otherthings,of the importanceof religionin Indian society.
The bipolarityofthespiritualcontentofIndiancultureand the
materialistbasis ofwesternculturewas seenas an essentialand
inherentdifference. This was in parta reactionto theearlier
view that religionwas such a centralfactorin traditional
Indian societythat it obstructedprogress - the latterbeing
definedas social and economicchange.This view had been
eagerlytakenup byChristianmissionaries anxiousto prosely-
tizeamongthemoreenterprising Indian social groupsas well
as bythosewho werelookingfora singlefactorwhichwould
explainthe backwardnessof India as a colonial society.16
The nationalisthistoriansconcernedthemselveswiththose
ideas which were necessaryto nationalistpolemics. They
questionedindividualitemsof historicalinterpretation rather
than examiningthe validityof a theoryas a total patternof
interpretation.Nor did theyattemptto replace the existing
theorieswithnewones fundamentally different fromwhathad
gone before. In a sense, nationalistideologydelimitedthe
natureoftheirquestions.However,in spiteoftheseweaknes-
ses,theimpactofthenationalistschoolwas bothconsiderable
15. Sen (1901, 323).

16. Weber(1958) is theculminationof a rangeof such viewsoverthe nineteenth
century.For a discussionof the Christianmissionaryposition,see Embree(1962).
and necessary.The roleofideologyin historicalinterpretation

was recognizedwiththehighlighting oftheideologicalcontent
Aboveall,itpreparedthewayforthe
ofearlierinterpretations.
questioningof theacceptedtheories.
This has been of necessityan oversimplified sketchof the
main ideological trendsin moderninterpretations of early
Indian history.I would now liketo considerat greaterlength
thetwomaintheoriesto whichI have referred. In selectingthe
Aryanproblemand Orientaldespotismforfurther analysis,in
thelightof newevidenceand methodsofinquiry,mypurpose
is notmerelyto indicatetheinapplicability ofthetheories,but
also to suggestthe natureof possible generalizationswhich
arisein the reexaminationof acceptedtheories.
The questioningoftheAryantheoryis based on theworkin
recentyears fromthree differentdisciplines:archaeology,
and social anthropology.
linguistics, The discoveryand exca-
vationofthecitiesof theIndus civilizationhave pushedback
the beginningof Indian historyto thethirdmillennium B.C.,
and theInduscivilizationhas replacedtheVedicAryanculture
as thestartingpointof Indian history.The cities^f the Indus
predatethe Vedic cultureby at least a millenniumsince the
declineof the citiesdatesto theearlysecond millennium and
the diffusionof Sanskritas a part of the Vedic culture is
believedto have begunat the end of the same millennium.17
The Indus citiesepitomizea copper-ageurban civilization,
based on commercebothwithinthenorthwestern area of the
subcontinent and in West Asia. The earliestofthe Vedic texts,
theRg Veda,reflects a pastoral,cattle-keepingpeopleunfamil-
iar withurbanlife.IftheAryanshad conquerednorthwestern
India and destroyedthecities,somearchaeologicalevidenceof
theconquestshouldhave been forthcoming. In onlyone part
of one of the cities is there evidence of what mightbe
interpreted as the aftermath of conquest,and even this has
been seriouslydoubted.18The decline of the Indus citiesis
generallyattributedto extensiveecological changes. The
17. See Wheeler(1968) and Allchin& Allchin(1966).

18. See Dales (1965, 18).
398 Romila Thapar
repeatedfloodingof theIndus,theriseof thewatertableand

salinizationof the land undercultivation,the change in the
courseoftheSarasvatiriver,withtheconsequentencroachment
of the desert,and major sea-levelchangesaffecting the ports
along the west coast seem more convincingexplanationsfor
the declineof the cities.19Palaeobotanicalanalysessuggesta
markedchange in climaticconditionsfromhumidto dry.20
Unlikeconquest,ecologicalchangewas moregradual,and, as
thecitiesdeclined,thereweremigrations out ofthecitiesat the
same time as small groups of squattersmoved in fromthe
neighboringareas. Recent evidence from excavations in
westernIndia and the Indo-Gangeticdivide pointstoward
some continuitybetweenthe Indus civilizationand later
cultures.21There is littledoubt now thatcertainfacetsof the
Induscivilizationsurvivedintothesecondand firstmillennium
culturesin spiteof the declineof thecities.The earlierhiatus
betweenthe Indus civilizationand the Vedic cultureis no
longeracceptable,and theInduscivilization nowhasto be seen
as the bedrockof earlyIndian culture.
Recentlinguistic analysesofVedicSanskrithaveconfirmed
thepresenceof non-Aryanelements,especiallyProto-Dravid-
ian, both in vocabularyand phonetics.22 Consequentlyit has
been suggestedthat Proto-Dravidiancould have been the
earlierlanguageof nothernIndia, perhapsthelanguageofthe
Induscivilization,althoughthisawaitsthedecipherment ofthe
Indus script,and that Vedic Sanskrit,as the languageof a
particularsocial group,slowlyspreadacrossthenorthern half
of thesubcontinent, witha possibleperiodof bilingualism, in
which Vedic Sanskritwas modifiedby the indigenouslan-
19. See Raikes (1964, 1965,40), Lambrick(1967, 133),Raikes(1968, 196ff.),

and
Sarma(1971,280ff.).
20. See Singh(1971).
21. Indicated,forexample,bythecoexistenceoftheBlack-and-Redwareculture
withthelate Harappan in westernIndia and thatoftheOchrecolorpotteryculturein
the Indo-Gangeticdivideand the Ganga-YamunaDoab.
22. See Burrow(1955, 373ff.),Emeneau (1967, 148, 155), and Basham (1954).
guage.23It is significantthatsomeoftheProto-Dravidianloan
words in Vedic Sanskritreferto agriculturalprocesses.We
know fromarchaeological evidence that advanced plough
agriculturewas knownto the Indus settlements,24 and, from
the Rg Vedichymns,it is apparentthatpastoralism,notagri-
culture,was the moreprestigiousprofessionamongtheearly
Aryanspeakers.
Anthropological studiesof Indian societyhave encouraged
a reappraisal of the social historyof early periods. The
insistenceon the precisemeaningof wordsrelatingto social
categoriesin the sourceshas been all to the good. The valid
distinction betweenvarnaas caste in thesenseof ritualstatus
andjâti as castein thesenseof actual statusis again a helpto
the social historian.The mostusefulcontribution, however,
has been in the studyof the formationof castes,whichhas
made it apparent that caste society does not require the
preconditionof different racial entities,nor the conquestof
one by the other.It does requirethe existenceof hereditary
groupsthatdetermine marriagerelations,thatare arrangedin
a hierarchical order, thatperform
and servicesforone another.
The hierarchy dependent occupation,on certainbeliefsof
is on
purityand pollution, and on continued settlementin a
particulargeographicallocation.The formation ofa newcaste
has, therefore, to be seen in termsof historicalchange in a
particularregion. Thus, a tribe incorporatedinto peasant
societycould be convertedintoa caste.25Occupationalgroups
oftenacquireda caste identity throughthecorporateentityof
the guild or throughhereditaryofficein administration.26
Religioussects,frequently protestingagainstthecaste hierar-
chy, often ended up as castes themselves.Possibilitiesofsocial
mobilityand variations in statuswere linked to thehistorical
contextof time and place. Social attitudeswere oftenset.
Nevertheless, opportunities forsocial changewereexploited,
23. See Emeneau(1967).
24. See Lai (1970-71,Iff.)
25. See Bose (1953) and Mandlebaum(1970).
26. See Sharma (n.d.).
400 Romila Thapar
and thehistoriancan no longerdismissthesocialdimensionby
merelyreferring to theunchangingrigidity ofcastesociety.In
this contextthe theoryof Sanskritizationhas been a major
breakthrough in the studyof social history.27
The combinationof new evidenceand freshperspectives
fromall these sources raises a host of new questionswith
referenceto the Vedic period. Evidentlyit was not a purely
Indo-Aryancontribution to Indian cultureand has to be seen
as an amalgamoftheIndo-Europeanand theexistingculture,
which,in turn,requiresa clearerdefinintion ofeach. Sincethe
of
spread Sanskrit,certainly in the Gangesvalleyifnotin the
northwestas well,appears to have occurredmorethrougha
processofdiffusion thanthroughconquest,themotivation for
thediffusionwould have to be sought.One ofthepossibilities
suggestedis that it coincided with the arrival of a new
technologyat the startof the firstmillenniumB.C. This is
apparentin the use of iron in preference to copper and the
introduction of the horseand the spokedwheel,bothnewto
India.28The ambiguityof the word "ayas",copper or ironin
Sanskrit,createssome difficulties in an immediateacceptance
of thisidea. Vedic Sanskritis closelyconnectedwithpriestly
groups, and the belief in ritual may have acceleratedthe
diffusion, particularlyas it seemsthatVedicritualwas closely
associated withknowledgeof the solar calendar,providing,
amongotherthings,a moreeffective controloveragricultural
processes.The diffusionof a languagedoes not requirethe
physicalpresenceof largenumbersof nativespeakers.It can
oftenbe done moreeffectively byinfluential groupsamongthe
indigenouspopulationadapting the new languageand using
the traditionalnetworksof communication.The spread of
Sanskritmightbe moremeaningfully seenas markinga point
of social change,apart frommerelya changeof language.
The notion of historical change, other than changing
dynasties,was curiouslyunacceptableto nineteenth-century
27. See Srinivas(1952).

28. See Thapar (1969).
thinking on theIndianpast.The unchangingnatureofsociety

is centralto the theoryof orientaldespotism.The span of
Indian historywas seen as one long stretchof empirewithan
occasional change of dynasty.Yet, in fact,empireswere of
shortdurationand veryinfrequent. Therewas onlyone empire
in theearlyperiod,the Mauryanempire,lastingfromtheend
of the fourthto the earlysecond centuryB.C., whichwould
even approximately qualifyas an imperialsystem.It was not
untilthe historialwritingof the twentieth centurythatsome
concessionwas madeto change,and imperialgoldenageswere
interspersed withthe dark ages of smallerkingdoms.29
In reexaminingorientaldespotism,it is not new evidence
whichprovidesan alternativeanalysis,but the morecareful
questioningofexistingsources.It is surprising thatreferences
to privateproperty in land shouldhavebeenoverlooked.The
sociolegal texts,the dharmaÊâstrasand the early text on
politicaleconomy,the ArthaÊâstra, list and discussthe laws
and regulationsforthe sale, bequest,and inheritance of land
and other formsof property.30 More precise information
comesfromthemanyinscriptions oftheperiodafter500 A.D.,
oftenin the form of copperplatesrecordingthegrantof land
by eitherthe kingor some wealthyindividualto a religious
beneficiary, or,alternatively,bytheKingto a secularofficialin
lieu of servicesrenderedto theking.31 These inscriptions were
deciphered in the nineteenth century,but were read primarily
forthedata theycontainedon chronology and dynasties.In the
last couple of decades,however,theyhave becomethe basic
sourcematerialforthestudyoftheagrarianstructure ofthefirst
millennium A.D.32Since thesewerethelegalchartersrelating
to the grants,thetransfer of theland is recordedin detail.In
areas wherethelandgrantedwas alreadyundercultivation, the
price paid forthe land, the personfromwhomthe land was
bought,and thepersonto whomtheproperty was transferred
29. See Smith(1919).

30. See Kane (1930, Vol.3).
31. See Morrison(1970).
32. See Sharma (1965).
402 Romila Thapar
are mentioned,togetherwiththelocationofland,theauthor-
ityoftheofficialsunderwhomthetransfer was completed,and
theconsentofthevillagewithinwhosejurisdiction thelandlay.
Not only do these inscriptionsprovide evidence of the
categoriesofownershipofland,butwheretheyreferto waste-
land, it is possible to indicatethe gradual extensionof the
agrarianeconomyintonewareas.This information is ofsome
not
consequence, merely to economic history,butalso to those
concernedwiththe historyof religion.The extensionof the
agrarianeconomywas generallyaccompaniedeitherby Bud-
dhistmissionsor by nucleiiof Brahmansettlements through
whichSanskriticculturewas introducedintothenewareasand
the local culture of these areas was assimilatedinto the
Sanskritictradition.33 ofthesetwolevelsofbelief
The interplay
systemswas a necessaryprocessin the delineationof Indian
culture.The stressso farhas been on the highcultureof the
Sanskritictradition,whichis inadequate forunderstanding
the historicalrole of culturalforms.
Many of these recordsprovideinformation on the riseof
familiesof relativelyobscure origin to high social status,
usuallythroughthe channelsof land ownershipand admini-
strativeoffice.34Those who becamepowerfulhad genealogies
fabricatedfor themselves,bestowingon the familyksatriya
statusand, ifrequired,linkswithroyallineagesas well.Such
periods of historical change demanded new professions,
professionswhichfinallyevolved into castes. For example,
administrative complexitiesrelatingto grantsof land on a
large scale needed professionalscribes.Not surprisingly, the
preeminent casteofscribes,thekayastha,arefirstreferred to in
the sourcesof thisperiod.
The importancegivento a centralizedbureaucracyin the
model was perhapsa reflection, among otherthings,of the
nineteenth-century faithintheadministratoras thepivotofthe
33. This is clearlyreflected
in theoriginmythsofrulingfamilies,
forinstance,even
in areas as seeminglyremoteas Chota Nagpur.The originmythoftheNagabansisis
clearlyderivedfromPuranicsources.
34. As, forexample,theMaitrakasof Vallabhiduringthefifth
and sixthcenturies
A.D.
imperialsystem.The bureaucraticsystemof earlyIndia was

rarelycentralized, exceptin theinfrequent periodsof empire.
Recruitment was impersonal,and mostlevelsof administra-
tion were filled by local people. And it was at the more
localizedlevelsthattheeffective centersofpowerwerelocated.
In periodsofempire,thesurplusdidfinditswayintothehands
of the royal court. But duringthe manycenturiesof small
kingdoms,theincomefromrevenuewas distributed amonga
large numberof elite groups, which in part explains the
regionalvariationsand distributionin art styleswherethe
patron was not a distantemperorbut the local king. This
tendencytowardpoliticaldecentralization was accentuatedin
the post-Guptaperiod,circa, 500 A.D., when salaries were
computed,notin cash,as intheearlierperiod,butin grantsof
revenueand, later,grantsof land.
Bureaucraticcontrolover the economy,such as it was,
derivedfromcontrolover revenuecollection.The hydraulic
machineryplayed only a marginalrole. Large-scale,state-
controlledirrigationwas rare. In the main, irrigationaids
consistedof wells and tanks,builtand maintainedeitherby
wealthylandownersor throughthe cooperativeeffortof the
village.The more relevantquestion is not that of the state
ownershipof the hydraulicmachinery,but the variationin
irrigationtechnologyand the degree to which irrigation
facilitiesgave an individualor an institution a politicaledge
over others.
The othermechanismof control,accordingto the theory,
was a beliefin thedivinityof kingship,whichgave thekinga
religiousand psychologicalauthorityadditionalto thepoliti-
cal. The attribution of thisqualityof divinityto kingshipwas
probablytheresult earlierstudieson kingshipand divinity
of in
theancientNear East. The interrelation betweendivinity and
politicalauthority was never absolute in ancientIndia. Divin-
ity was easilybestowed, not only on kings, buton a varietyof
objects, both animate and inanimate. Far from emphasizing
divinity,the kingsof the Mauryan empirewere patronsof
heterodoxsects whichdenied the existenceof any god and
ignored the notion of divinity.Divinitywas appealed to
404 Romila Thapar
initiallyin theriseof monarchyas a politicalformin thefirst

millenniumB.C.35 But the maximumreferences to kingsas
eitherincarnations ordescendents ofthegodscoincidewiththe
periodoftheriseofobscurefamiliesto kingshipand fabricated
genealogies,suggesting thattheappeal to divinitywas a form
of social validationand its significancewas largelythatof a
metaphor.A particularly subtleaspectoftheIndiannotionof
authority whichhas notso farreceivedadequate attentionhas
been the interactionof politicalauthoritywithwhatmay be
called the moralauthorityof therenouncer.Time and again,
therenouncerhas returnedto societyand, whilestillnotfully
participatingin it, has played a significantrole outsidethe
realm of conventionalpoliticalauthority.Whereaspolitical
authority(râjdharma) derivesfromthe power of coercion
(danda) and religiousauthorityfrom ritual and formulae
(yajna,pûjà, and mantra),thederivationoftheauthority ofthe
renounceris difficultto ascertain,combiningas it does
elementsof the psychological,the social, the moral,and the
magical.
One of themorestriking refutationsofan aspectoforiental
despotism has been that involvingthe absence of urban
centers.The evidenceforan earlycontinuousurbaneconomy
has been pinpointedby archaeological excavations. This,
combinedwithliterary sources,suggestssignificantvariations
in the natureof urbanization.That the literarysourceswere
not fullyutilizedwas largelybecause the details of urban
societyoccurfirstinthePâli Buddhisttexts,and thesewerenot
giventheattention whichtheydeservedbythoseusingSanskrit
sources.The earliestcopper-agecitiesoftheInduscivilization
were smallerconcentrationsof populationthanthoseof the
second period of urbanizationlinked withiron technology
whichevolvedin theGangesvalleyinthefirstmillennium B.C.
This had as its economicbase tradewithinthesubcontinent.
The widespreaduse of coins and otheradjunctsto extensive
tradingrelationships, suchas lettersof creditand promissory
35. See Spellman(1964).
notes,not onlyextendedthe geographicalreach of tradebut

considerablyincreasedthevolumeof trade.Steps towardthe
growthof a marketeconomyare apparentin the Buddhist
literature relatingto thecitiesof theGanges valley,butthisis
less evidentin thegrowthofthecitiesofmaritimesouthIndia
at theend of thefirstmillennium, wherearchaeologyhas cor-
roboratedthe literaryreferences to a lucrativetradewiththe
Roman empire.
At anotherlevel, attemptshave been made to correlate
certainreligiousmovementswiththe needs of urbangroups.
The workon theriseand spreadof Buddhismand Jainismin
relationto the mercantilecommunityhas inspireda wider
debateon aspectsofthebhaktimovements as beinginpartthe
religionofurbangroupswithelementsofdissidentthoughtor,
forthat matter,the investigation of the Hindu templeas an
economicentrepreneur.36 The outcomeofsuchstudiesis likely
to lead to a ratherradicalrevisionofMax Weber'sthesison the
social and economicrole of religionin India.
In suggesting thatthesetwotheories-theAryantheoryand
orientaldespotism - emanatingfromideologiespertinentto
nineteenth-century Europe are now no longertenable,it may
appear as if I am tiltingat windmills.Yet it is surprisinghow
deeplyrootedthesetheoriesare, both in India and elsewhere,
and how frequently theyare revivedforreasonsof academic
studyas wellas in politicalpolemics.The Aryantheoryofrace
has not only servedculturalnationalismin India but also
continuesto serveHindurevivalism and, inversely, anti-Brah-
man movements.At the academic level, the insistenceon
ascribingIndo-Europeanrootsto all aspectsof Vedic culture
has actedas a restraint on theanalysisofmythology, religion,
and culturalsymbolsfromthe historicalpoint of view. The
intellectualhistoryof a periodas richas thatofthe Upanisads
and earlyBuddhism,approximately themid-first millennium
B.C., has been hemmedin by the constraintsof seeingit in
termsofan internalmovementamongdissidentâryans,rather
than fromthe more meaningfulperspectiveof a period of
36. See Stein (1968).
406 Romila Thapar
seminalchange.The pernnialsearchfor"theAryans"contin-
ues apace, witharchaeologistsstillattempting to identify a
of
variety archaeological cultures as Aryan.37
Orientaldespotismwas reviveda couple of decades ago in
Wittfogel's assessmentofbureaucraticsystemsand in associa-
tion with an oblique critique of the Soviet system.The
reincarnation of thetheoryas theAsiaticmodeofproduction
has had, I believe,an even fullertransfusion in recentSoviet
assessmentsof theChinesepast,as it has fromtimeto timeat
the academic level in more general economic analyses of
historicalchangein Asia.
That the interpretation of ancient Indian Historywas
subject to the of
polemics politicalideologywas inevitable.
Colonial situationstend to play on the politicalcontentof
historicalinterpretation. The sanctity ofancientcultureas seen
througha nationalistvision made it sensitiveto historical
analysis.This is not to deny,however,thatoverthelast two
centuries,at the level of the discoveryof evidence, the
scholarshiphas been both meticulousand extensive.Earlier
theoriesof interpretation have not been replacedas thereis
nowa concernwiththeneedforclearerdefinitions ofhistorical
concepts based on a of
largerbody precise evidence. This is
most apparentin the currentdebate on the periodizationof
Indianhistory.Nevertheless, fora whiletherewas a disinclina-
tion to move away fromthe subjectof polemics.
Symbolicofthisdisinclination was theconsistentoverlook-
ing of one significant aspect of historicalinterest:the tradi-
tional Indian understanding of its own past. It has long been
maintainedthatthe Indians werean ahistoricalpeople,since
therewas no recognizablehistoricalwritingfromthe Indian
traditionsimilarto thatfromGreeceand China. This was in
part because the Indian historicaltradition-the itihâsa-
purâna, as it is called- was in a formnoteasilyrecognizable
to thosefamiliarwithGreekhistoricalwriting. Anotherreason
mayhavebeentheinabilityofmodernscholarsto perceiveand
concede the awarenessof change,so necessaryto a sense of
37. See Lai (1954-55).
history,in the itihâsa-purâna,and thisprecludedthemfrom

seeingthe historicalbasis of the tradition.
The earlyIndianhistoricaltradition, whichis nowreceiving
theattentionofhistoriansand is beinganalyzedin termsofits
ideologicalcontent,does reflecta distinctimage of the past,
and itsconcernsare different fromthoseofmoderninterpreta-
tionsof the past.38For instance,theunitof historyis notthe
empirebutthejanapada, theterritory settledbya tribe,which
laterevolvesintoa state,generally kingdom.Referencesare
a
made to emperorsas universalrulers,the samrât and the
cakravartin, buttheseare at theabstractlevel.Realityrevolves
around the kings of smaller kingdoms.The genealogical
sectionsof the traditionexplainthesettlements of tribesand,
withtheemergenceofstates, the association ofdynasties.39 But
thepastwas notrecordedas a successionofpoliticalevents,for
the legitimization of politicalauthoritywas moreimportant,
and itwas to thisthatthehistoricaltraditiongave precedence.
The recordsoftheseearlygenealogieswereusedfromthefirst
millennium A.D. onwardforlegitimizing newdynastieswhich
weregivenlinkswiththeancientroyallineages.Recentworkin
social historyhas shownthatpoliticalpowerwas a relatively
openarea in earlyIndiansociety,and thesocial antecedents of
as
thefoundersofdynastieswererarelyquestioned long they as
compliedwiththeproceduresnecessaryforlegitimizing politi-
cal authority.
In theBuddhisttradition, theunitofhistory was theSangha
or BuddhistChurch, and monastic chronicles formed thecore
not
ofthetradition.Thesewere merely history the of the Elders
of the Church,forthe monasteryas an important socioreli-
giousinstitutionplayedan activepoliticalrole,and itsrelation-
shipwith politicalauthority is apparentfromthesechronicles.40
Cyclictimeand thechangeimplicitin themovementofthe
cyclewerethecosmologicalreflections oftheconsciousnessof
on thistraditionare Pargiter(1922), Pathak(1966),and Warder

38. Major writers
(1972).
39. See Thapar (1976).
40. See Perera(1961, 29ff.).
408 Romila Thapar
change.Even moreinteresting is theevolutionintheformand

styleof the historicaltraditionitself,in the latterpartof the
firstmillenniumA.D., when the record includesdetails of
eventsrelatingto politicalauthority - in short,the kind of
literaturewhich is easily recognizableas historicalwriting,
consistingof biographiesof rulersand statesmenand chroni-
cles of dynasties.41This new developmentin the tradition
coincideswithactual historicalchange,characterized bysmall
kingdomsgenerallyconforming to thegeographically nuclear
regions. These were based on a decentralizedadministration
and economic structure, withan extensionof patronageto
local culturesand theemergenceof thedevotionalreligion -
-
the bhaktimovement which,throughits appeal to a large
cross section of social groups and its use of the regional
language,strengthened the regionalfocus.
Yet the link withthe mainstreamof the traditionwas not
broken.Into the earlyhistoryof the regionor thedynastyis
woven,quite deliberately, the mythology and lineagesof the
earliertradition.The networkof Sanskriticculture,at leastat
the upper levels of society,was a more real bond between
people and places thanthemereinclusionof thesewithinthe
confinesof an empire.
The perspectiveof the ancientIndian historicaltradition
when seen in juxtapositionwiththe more recentanalysesof
early Indian history,apart from its inherentintellectual
interest,can suggesttheideologicalconcernsoftheprecolonial
period.These mightprovideto the historianof earlyIndia a
clearervisionofthepriorities oftheIndianpastthanhas been
providedby the polemics of more recenttimes.
References
R. Allchin& B. Allchin,The BirthofIndian Civilisation(Harmondsworth:
Pengiun,
1966).
41. See, forexample,Banabhatta'sHar sacarita,Bilhana's Vikramânkadevacar-

ita, Kalhana's Râjatarangini,and variousvamsavalis.
H. W. Bailey,"Iranian Arya and Dana," Transactionsof the PhilologicalSociety
(London, 1959),71-115.
A. L. Basham, The Wonderthatwas India (London: Sidgwick& Jackson,1954).
Francois Bernier,Voyagesde F. Bernier,2 vols. (Amsterdam,1699).
in CulturalAnthropology
N. K.. Bose, "The Hindu Method of Tribal Absorption,*'
and OtherEssays(Calcutta: Indian AssociatedPubl. Co., 1953).
T. Burrow,The SanskritLanguage(London: Faber & Faber, 1955).
at Mohenjo-daro,"Archaeology,XVIII, 2, June
G. F. Dales, "New Investigations
1965.
A. Embree,CharlesGrantand BritishRule in India (London: Allen& Urwin,1965).
M. B. Emeneau,CollectedPapers (Annamalainagar,1967).
R.A.L.H. Gunawardana,"The AnalysisofPre-ColonialSocial Formationsin Asia in
the Writingsof Karl Marx," Indian HistoricalReview,II, 2, 1976.
D.G.E. Hall, éd., HistoriansofSouth-EastAsia (London & New York:OxfordUniv.
Press, 1961).
G.W.F. Hegel, Lectureson the Philosophyof History(London, 1857).
K. P. Jayaswal,Hindu Polity(Calcutta, 1924).
P. V. Kane, Historyof Dharmasastra(Poona: BandarkarOrientalResearchInstitute,
1930).
R. Koebner,"Despot and Despotism:Vicissitudesofa PoliticalTerm,*'Journalofthe
Warburgand CourtauldInstitutes,XIV, 1 & 2, 1951,275-302.
AncientIndia, 10 & 11, 1954-55,Iff.
B. B. Lai, "Excavationsat Hastinapura,**
B. B. Lai,"PerhapstheOldestPloughedFieldSo Far ExcavatedAnywhere intheWorld,"
Puratatva,4, 1970-71,1-4.
H. T. Lambrick,"The Indus Flood-Plainand theindus*Civilization,*'
Geographical
Journal,CXXXIII, pt. 4, Dec. 1967,483-95.
Joan Leopold, "BritishApplicationsoftheAryanTheoryof Race to India, 1850-70,
EnglishHistoricalReview,LXXXIX, 352, July1974,578-603.
D. Mandlebaum,Societyin India,2 vols.,(Berkeley:Univ.ofCaliforniaPress,1970).
(London: Weidenfeld& Nicolson,
A. D. Momigliano,Studies in Historiography
1966).
R. K. Mookerji,Harsha (London, 1926).
B. Morrison,PoliticalCentersand CultureRegionsin EarlyBengal(Tucson: Univ.of
Arizona Press, 1970).
Max Millier,India, WhatCan It Teach Us? (London, 1883).
F. E. Pargiter,The AncientIndian HistoricalTradition(London, 1922).
V. S. Pathak,AncientHistoriansof India (London: Asia Publ. House, 1966).
L. S. Perera,"The Pali ChronicleofCeylon,"inC. H. Philips,éd., HistoriansofIndia,
Pakistan,and Ceylon(London: OxfordUniv. Press, 1961),29-43.
410 Romila Thapar
C. H. Philips,éd., Historiansof India, Pakistanand Ceylon(London: OxfordUniv.
Press, 1961).
Leon Poliakov, 77?*AryanMyth(New York: Basic Books, 1974).
H. C. Raichaudhury,The PoliticalHistoryof AncientIndia (Calcutta, 1923).
R. L. Raikes,"The End of the AncientCities of India," AmericanAnthropologist,
LXVI, 2, Apr. 1964,284-99.
R. L. Raikes,"The Mohenjo-daroFloods," Antiquity,
XXXIX, Sept. 1965,196-203.
R. L. Raikes,"Kalibangan: Death fromNaturalCauses," Aniquity,XXXXI1, 1968,
286-91.
Thomas Roe, 77?*Embassyof Sir ThomasRoe to India, 1615-1619(London, 1926).
A.V.N. Sarma, "Decline of Harappan Cultures:A Relook," in Saw. Ganesan et al.,
eds., ProfessorK. A. NilakantaSastri FelicitationVolume(Madras: Professor
K. A. NilakantaFelicitationCommittee,1971).
KeshabChandraSen, KeshubChundarSen's LecturesinIndia(London & NewYork:
Cassell, 1901).
R. S. Sharma,Indian Feudalism(Calcutta: Univ. of Calcutta, 1965).
R. S. Sharma,"Social Changein EarlyMedievalIndia," Devraj Chanana Memorial
Lecture,n.d.
GurdipSingh,"The IndusValleyCulture,"Archeologyand PhysicalAnthropology
in
Oceania, VI, 2, July1971, 177-89.
VincentSmith,77?*OxfordHistoryof India (Oxford,1919).
Soedjatmoko,éd., An Introductionof IndonesianHistoriography
(Ithaca: Cornell
Univ. Press, 1965).
J. Spellman,Political Theoryof AncientIndia (Oxford:ClarendonPress, 1964).
M. N. Srinivas,Religionand SocietyAmong the Coorgs of South India (Oxford:
ClarendonPress, 1952).
J. F. Staal, éd., A Reader on the SanskritGrammarians(Cambridge:MIT Press,
1972).
B. Stein,"Social Mobilityand Medieval South Indian Hindu Sects," Comparative
Studies in Societyand History,SupplementIII, 1968,78-94.
Romila Thapar, "Interpretations
of AncientIndian History,"Historyand Theory,
VII, 3, Oct. 1968,318-35.
Romila Thapar,"The Studyof Societyin AncientIndia," Proceedingsof theIndian
HistoryCongress,Varanasi, 1969.
RomilaThapar,"Genealogyas a SourceofSocial History,"IndianHistoricalReview,
IV, 1976.
Paul Thieme,Der Fremdlingin Rigveda(Heidelberg,1938).
D. Thorner,"Marx on India and the AsiaticMode ofProduction,"Contributions
to
Indian Sociology,IX, 1966,33-66.
FrancoVenturi,"OrientalDespotism,"JournaloftheHistoryofIdeas, XXIV, l,Jan.-
Mar. 1963, 133-42.
Ideologyand EarlyIndian History 41 1
(Bombay: Popular Prak-

A. K. Warder,An Introductionto Indian Historiography
ashan, 1972).
Max Weber,The Religionof India (Glencoe, II: Free Press, 1958).
R.E.M. Wheeler,The Indus Civilisation(Cambridge:CambridgeUniv.Press,1968).
OrientalDespotism(New Haven: Yale Univ. Press, 1957).
Karl Wittfogel,

Ideology and The Interpretation of Early Indian History

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ideology and The Interpretation of Early Indian History

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Review (Fernand Braudel Center)

Research Foundation of State University of New York

Ideology and the Interpretation of Early Indian History

It is sometimessaid thatthe interpretationsof theancient

and particularlyBritish,historians,who providedthe initial

3. See Staal (1972).

extensivelyin the reconstruction of both Indian and Indo-

regulations.The racial connotationmayhave been due to the

5. See Rg Veda 2.20.8; 2.12.4; 3.34.9; 1.33.4;4.16.3; 5.29.10; 10.22.8.

absenceofaggressionand competition.7 Possiblysomeofthese

philosophersof historyof the time. Hegel, for example,

8. See Hegel (1857).

12. See Gunawardana(1976).

15. Sen (1901, 323).

and necessary.The roleofideologyin historicalinterpretation

17. See Wheeler(1968) and Allchin& Allchin(1966).

repeatedfloodingof theIndus,theriseof thewatertableand

19. See Raikes (1964, 1965,40), Lambrick(1967, 133),Raikes(1968, 196ff.),

27. See Srinivas(1952).

thinking on theIndianpast.The unchangingnatureofsociety

29. See Smith(1919).

imperialsystem.The bureaucraticsystemof earlyIndia was

initiallyin theriseof monarchyas a politicalformin thefirst

35. See Spellman(1964).

notes,not onlyextendedthe geographicalreach of tradebut

36. See Stein (1968).

37. See Lai (1954-55).

history,in the itihâsa-purâna,and thisprecludedthemfrom

on thistraditionare Pargiter(1922), Pathak(1966),and Warder

change.Even moreinteresting is theevolutionintheformand

41. See, forexample,Banabhatta'sHar sacarita,Bilhana's Vikramânkadevacar-

(Bombay: Popular Prak-

You might also like