MHI-03 HISTORIOGRAPHY

Course Code: MHI-03

Assignment Code: MHI-03/AST/TMA/2021-22
Total Marks: 100

Note: Attempt any five questions. The assignment is divided into two Sections ‘A’ and ‘B’.
You have to attempt at least two questions from each section in about 500 words each.
All questions carry equal marks.

IN
SECTION-A

S.
1. What is causation? Discuss the manner in which historians use causation to explain any
historical phenomenon. 20

50 NT
2. Write a note on the historiographical traditions in early India. 20

80 E
3. What do you understand by oral history? Discuss its relationship with the mainstream
historiograph 20
26 NM
4. Describe the important features of Indo-Persian tradition of history-writing during the Mughal
period. 20
91 IG

5. Give an analytical account of the various traditions of historiography which constitute the
Positivist tradition. 20
98 S
AS

SECTION-B

6. What is postmodernism? Discuss the postmodernist views on history. 20

U
O

7. Write a note on the colonial historiography on Indian history. 20

N

8. What do you understand by the term ‘subaltern’? Discuss the two phases the Subaltern
Studies in India. 20
IG

9. Write a note on the conflicting views on Indian Renaissance. 20

10. Write short notes in about 250 words each on any two of the following: 10+10

a) D.D. Kosambi and Indian Historiography

b) Greco-Roman Historiography
c) Feminist Historiography in India
d) Annales School
 ASSIGNMENT SOLUTIONS GUIDE (2021-22)

MHI-03: HISTORIOGRAPHY

Disclaimer/Special Note: These are just the sample of the Answers/Solutions to some of the Questions
given in the Assignments. These Sample Answers/Solutions are prepared by Private
Teacher/Tutors/Authors for the help and guidance of the student to get an idea of how he/she can
answer the Questions given the Assignments. We do not claim 100% accuracy of these sample
answers as these are based on the knowledge and capability of Private Teacher/Tutor. Sample
answers may be seen as the Guide/Help for the reference to prepare the answers of the Questions
given in the assignment. As these solutions and answers are prepared by the private teacher/tutor so

IN
the chances of error or mistake cannot be denied. Any Omission or Error is highly regretted though
every care has been taken while preparing these Sample Answers/Solutions. Please consult your own

S.
Teacher/Tutor before you prepare a Particular Answer and for up-to-date and exact information, data
and solution. Student should must read and refer the official study material provided by the

50 NT
university.

80 E SECTION-A
26 NM
Q2. Write a note on the historiographical traditions in early India.
Ans. The ancient Indians were acquainted more with the art than sciences of historiography. It would
be too much to expect scientific, serious or genuine histories from the authors of ancient times. It has
been aptly remarked that the modern historian of ancient India unceremoniously discards the ancient
91 G

forms and ideas, the very context of ancient historical works. The tradition of historical writing in
ancient India began in the time of Vedavyasa and continued until the end of twelfth century AD. The
SI

oldest Indian historical tradition is preserved in the Rgveda. The Rgveda hymns about the Aryan
people speak of the sense of history of those who composed them. These hymns constitute the earliest
AS

evidence of the historical sense in India. And the composition of the original Bharata Itihasa or
Bharata Samhita and the Purana Samhita or Itihasa Samhita by Vyasa in theDvapara age marked the
beginning of Indian historiography. The two main tradition of historiography in its early phase were
U

the epic and Puranic. The Puranic tradition is relatively of greater value. The Puranakara were the
98

first to record and preserve the dynastic genealogies and chronology- the two legitimate constituents
O

or components of history. Their historical conception and chronological perception find reflections in
the information they have supplied about the kings of different dynasties with length of their reign.
N

They have provided the dynastic history of India in a very systematic way up to the beginning of the
IG

Gupta rule. The details of the Kingdoms and the dynasties of the Gupta post Gupta period furnished
by them with some chronological data though not very systematic are also of considerable historical
value. This chapter will discuss the tradition of historical writings in ancient India in three different
contexts such as the Itihasa-Purana tradition, the Vedic tradition and the Epic and Puranic traditions.
In fact, it was the Itihasa-Purana tradition, which marked the beginning of ancient Indian historical
tradition. The three main constituent elements of the historical tradition were akhyana(narratives),
Itihasa (pas events) and Purana (any old tale or ancient lore). These three constitute rudimentary
specimens of history. In fact, they contained the seeds of history. Akhyana signifies presentation of
history in a narrative style. Itihasa in real sense of the term signifies history, which appears in ancient
Indian literature not only as a record of the past but also as a trustworthy guide to contemporary
cultures and civilization. In its broader sense, it comprises ancient events arranged in the form of
story based on historical truth. The writer of Itihasa tradition took history in a very comprehensive
sense and attached more importance to the delineation of contemporary social, economic, political,

1
religious and cultural life of the people than to the mere description of wars and battles, political
conflicts and discords, etc. Purana is generally applied to tales of primeval antiquity or ancient stories
whether quasi-historical, mythological or fanciful. Itihasa or Purana in the widest application of the
term denotes actual traditional history. Various legendary and historical accounts of the events of the
past or primordial events of humanity have been incorporated in the Itihasa and Purana. The earliest
form of Itihasa based on real or oral tradition emerged in the Vedic age. The written records of the
tradition appeared much later. The written form of history began with written tradition. The
literature of both Vedic and Post-Vedic times contains the rudiments of history.
The antiquity of Itihasa-Purana tradition can be traced back to the Vedic Age. The earliest reference to
the word Purana occurs in Rgveda Samhita, the oldest Vedic text. The sense of ancientness of
anything is imposed in the word. In the same text, it has been used in the form of tale of hoary
antiquity, Gatha, etc. Yaska (who may be tentatively placed between 800-700 Cnetury B.C) also
referred to Purana and Itihasa. He cited the Kuru dynasty as an example of Itihasa, which according

IN
to him, may be distinguished from the Gathas. He uses Aitihasiaka, for those who interpreted the
Veda with reference of traditional history, which can also be supported by statement of Durgacharya
(A.D 1300-1350), a commentator on his work. The Puaranic Akahyanas in the Veda were purely based

S.
on contemporary tradition. Itihasa as a kind of literature is repeatedly mentioned along with Purana
in the later texts of the Vedic period as well as in the text of post- Vedic times. In the Atharva Veda

50 NT
Samhita, the Purana has been mentioned fast singularly along with three other Vedas and then
conjointly with Itihasa. In this connection we are further told that Itihasa, Purana, Gatha and
Narasamsis were known to the people. They being repository of age-old traditions were seriously
80 E
studies by scholars and elites of the days. The Gopatha Brahmana mentioned not only purana but
also the Itihasa- vedaand Purana –Veda. In the Satapatha Brahmana, the Itihasa and ther Purana have
26 NM
been identified with Vedas. The compound word Itihasa-Purana also figures in it. In one passage,
Anvakhyana and Itihasa are distinguished as different classes of works. But the exact point of
distinction is obscure. The former was probably supplementary to the later. The stories narrated in
91 G

the Brahminical textswere also based on Itihasa Purana tradition. In Taittiraiya Aranyakas, Itihasa
and Purana have been mentioned together with Gathas, Narasamsis and Kalpa. The combination of
SI

Itihasa and Purana appear in the Brahadaranyaka Upanishad. In the Chhodangya Upanishad also
Itihasa finds mentioned in combination with Purana. This is the texts, which specifically referred to
AS

Itihasa –Purana as fifth veda, the four veda being the Rig, Sam, Yajur and Atharva Veda. From the
Upanishad it distinctly appears that Itihasa, Purana and Veda were important subjects of study. The
Sankhayana srautasutra, mentioned the Itihasa as well as the Purana as a veda. In two Grihya sutra
also Itihasa and Purana have been mentioned, which stand for stories and legends. In one of the pali
U
98

texts, Itihasa is called as the fifth veda. Sayana, (1300-1380 A.D), a commentator on Veda, while
O

examining the relationship between Itihasa and Purana, tried to distinguish one from other which
yields no consistent result. We find that by the former he means the Mahabharata and by the later the
N

Brahmanda. They, according to him, form parts of the sacred literature, which consist of the story of
either god or men or cosmogony tradition. In fact, the general use of compound word Itihasa-Purana
IG

indicated the close relation between the two. In the later vedic age, the three family of the Angiras, the
Atharvanas and the Bhrigus, merged and the resultant composite family of the Bhrgviangirases
successfully carried on the tradition of Itihasa-Purana, Akhyanas and Akhyayikas etc.
There is no denying fact that in the later Vedic age, Itihasa assume greater importance than Purana,
however the fact remains that both were equally popular and remains indistinguishably. In the later
time, of course some distinction was made between the two. The connotation of Itihasa gradually
changed; Itihasa was often used as a general term as is embrace all the historical and related tradition
and the Purana.
The question as to which Itihasa-Purana or Itihasa has been called the fifth Veda in the Sanskrit and
Buddhist texts concerned still remains to be answered. K.F Geldner, on the basis of the evidence
whatsoever in the ancient Indian literature texts as reasonable concluded that their existed a single

2
word called Itihasaveda or itrihasa Purana. But he has not spelt out the name of the work. His view
have been contradicted by Maurice Winternitz and A.A.Macdonell
and A.B.Keith, according to them, the Itihasa Veda is not any particular book but that branches of
learning which consist of story, legend etc. They simply state that the Itihasa-Purana representing the
great body of mythology, legendary history, etc, may roughly classed as fifth Veda. Emil Sieg, while
dealing with the ancient Indian Itihasa tradition, point out that there existed a collection of Itihasa or
Purana under the title of Itihasapuranaveda. He has called the Mahabharata the fifth Veda
contending that these grate epic posses all the elements of Itihasa and Purana. J.Herten has also dealt
with the subject but without drawing and positive conclusion. However, the so called fifth Veda is no
other that Itihasa Samhita or Purana Samhita of Vyasa, which have been interchangeably called the
Itihasapurana and the PuranaItihasa. This canirrefutable be probe on the combined testimony of the
puranic texts themselves. Here, suffice it to say that ancient traditions preserved in the so called
Itihasa-Purana about kings of various dynasties, their genealogies and famous deeds etc., are of great

IN
historical importance. The Puranic texts deals with various aspects of ancient Indian history, which
are the glaring examples of Itihasas. The Purana appeared as enlarge forms of the Vedas. That is why
the Itihasa-Purana has been mentioned in the Vedic and puranic literature as the fifth Veda along

S.
with other four Vedas. The ItihasaPurana and the Vedas were closely related and equally important.
The Puranas were considered relatively more important that the Vedas. For achieving the correct

50 NT
interpretation, explanation and analysis of the data contained in the Vedas, the sound knowledge of
the Itihasa and Purana was essential for the Brahmans as evidenced by the Mahabharatas, the
Puranas and one of the Smritis. The Puranas was one of the main fourteen branches of learing.
80 E
According to well-established tradition, the learned members of the society regularly studied the
Itihasa and Purana.
26 NM
Q3. What do you understand by oral history? Discuss its relationship with the mainstream
historiograph
91 G

Ans.
SI
AS
U
98
O
N
IG

3
 IN
S.
50 NT
80 E
26 NM
91 G
SI
AS
U
98
O
N
IG

Q4. Describe the important features of Indo-Persian tradition of history-writing during the
Mughal period.
Ans. Among the Muslim elite, history was considered as the third important source of knowledge
after the religious scripture and jurisprudence.
Therefore, the study and writing of history were accorded great importance after the establishment of
the Delhi Sultanate in the closing years of 12th century. The pioneers of history- writing in the Indo-
Persian tradition were Muhammad bin Mansur, popularly known as Fakhr-i Mudabbir.

4
His writings included a book of genealogies of the Prophet of Islam and the Muslim rulers, including
Qutbuddin Aibak. Minhaj Siraj Juzjani was another important historian of the 13th century. However,
the most important figure in the Indo-Persian historiography was Ziauddin Barani in the 14th
century. His Tarikh-i Firuzshahi is a milestone in the tradition of history- writing in medieval India. It
was written for the enlightenment of the rulers of his times. Under the Mughals this tradition of
history-writing continued and reached new heights. Abul Fazl, Nizamuddin Ahmad, Abdul Qadir
Badauni, Khwaja Kamgar Husaini and Abdul Hamid Lahori were some important historians of the
Mughal period.
During the Mughal rule in India, a new tradition of history writing by official chroniclers came into,
existence. These chroniclers, appointed by almost all the Mughal emperors till the reign of
Aurangzeb, were provided access to the official records that could facilitate them in writing histories.
It was the most significant feature of the Indo-Persian tradition of history writing under the Mughal
rule.

IN
The Early Writings: Zahiruddin Muhammad Babur, who invaded India and supplanted the Lodi rule
by his Own in 1526, was a prolific writer. His autobiography Tuzuk-i-Baburi, written in Turkish is a
literary masterpiece, containing the history of the rise and fall of the Timurid power in central Asia,

S.
biographical account about himself, the description of life and culture in India and the diary of events
that took place in the course of campaigns he led against his rivals.

50 NT
Babur’s son and successor, Humayun (1530-1555) was also interested in history. He commissioned a
renowned scholar, Khawandmir, to compose the history of his reign. Khawandmir prepared a brief
account of Humayun’s reign from his accession up to the year 1535. Qannu-i Humayuni sheds
80 E
interesting light on Humayun’s state policy, particularly towards the Indian nobles and landed
aristocracy.
26 NM
Akbar’s Reign
Official histories: With the accession of Akbar (1556-1605) to the throne, important change took place
in the concept of history writing. Akbar proposed to have a written history of the Muslim rulers from
91 G

the death of the prophet up to his own time on the completion of the first millennium of Islam, i.e., a
history of one thousand years, called Tarikh-i Alfi. At Akbar’s instance, Gulbadan Begum, the
SI

daughter of Babur, wrote Humayunnama which sheds light on the lives and culture of the royal
harem. Bayazid Biyat’s Tazkirat-i Humayun wa Akbar and Jauhar Aftabchi’s Tazkirat-ul Waqiat are
AS

also important works written at Akbar’s order.

Non-official Histories: Nizamuddin Ahmad and Abdul Qadir Badauni were the two most important
non-official historians of the period. Nizamuddin wrote Tabaqat-i Akbari in three volumes. He
mentions all the important events that took place during Akbar’s reign including the controversial
U
98

Mahzar which Abul Fazl had left out.

O

Jahangir’s Reign: Akbar’s son and successor Jahangir wrote autobiographical history of his own
reign in the traditions set by Babur. Besides, Qazi Nurul Haque compiled the Zubdatu’t Tawarikh
N

and closed it with the account of Jahangir’s reign. The Zubdatu’t Tawarikh narrates the history of the
Muslim rulers of India.
IG

Shah Jahan’s Reign: Mutamad Khan wrote Iqbalnama-i Jahangiri after Shah Jahan’s accession to the
throne. His aim was to justify Shah Jahan’s rebellion against his father. Khwaja Kamgar Husaini’s
Maasir-i Jahangiri is an important source for the events that took place during the last years of
Aurangzeb’s Reign: Aurangzeb appointed Muhammad Kazim to write the history of his reign. His
Alamgir Nama reads as a panegyric in prose.’Later on, Saqi Mustaid Khan compiled the history of
Aurangzeb’s reign titled Maasir-i Alamgiri.

SECTION-B
Q6. What is postmodernism? Discuss the postmodernist views on history.
Ans. Postmodernism, also spelled post-modernism, in Western philosophy, a late 20th-century
movement characterized by broad skepticism, subjectivism, or relativism; a general suspicion of

5
reason; and an acute sensitivity to the role of ideology in asserting and maintaining political and
economic power.
This article discusses postmodernism in philosophy. For treatment of postmodernism in architecture,
see the article Western architecture.
Postmodernism and modern philosophy: Postmodernism is largely a reaction against the intellectual
assumptions and values of the modern period in the history of Western philosophy (roughly, the 17th
through the 19th century). Indeed, many of the doctrines characteristically associated with
postmodernism can fairly be described as the straightforward denial of general philosophical
viewpoints that were taken for granted during the 18th-century Enlightenment, though they were not
unique to that period. The most important of these viewpoints are the following.
• There is an objective natural reality, a reality whose existence and properties are logically
independent of human beings—of their minds, their societies, their social practices, or their
investigative techniques. Postmodernists dismiss this idea as a kind of naive realism. Such

IN
reality as there is, according to postmodernists, is a conceptual construct, an artifact of
scientific practice and language. This point also applies to the investigation of past events by
historians and to the description of social institutions, structures, or practices by social

S.
scientists.
• The descriptive and explanatory statements of scientists and historians can, in principle, be

50 NT
objectively true or false. The postmodern denial of this viewpoint—which follows from the
rejection of an objective natural reality—is sometimes expressed by saying that there is no
such thing as Truth.
80 E
• Through the use of reason and logic, and with the more specialized tools provided by science
and technology, human beings are likely to change themselves and their societies for the
26 NM
better. It is reasonable to expect that future societies will be more humane, more just, more
enlightened, and more prosperous than they are now. Postmodernists deny this
Enlightenment faith in science and technology as instruments of human progress. Indeed,
91 G

many postmodernists hold that the misguided (or unguided) pursuit of scientific and
technological knowledge led to the development of technologies for killing on a massive scale
SI

in World War II. Some go so far as to say that science and technology—and even reason and
logic—are inherently destructive and oppressive, because they have been used by evil people,
AS

especially during the 20th century, to destroy and oppress others.

• Reason and logic are universally valid—i.e., their laws are the same for, or apply equally to,
any thinker and any domain of knowledge. For postmodernists, reason and logic too are
merely conceptual constructs and are therefore valid only within the established intellectual
U
98

traditions in which they are used.

O

• There is such a thing as human nature; it consists of faculties, aptitudes, or dispositions that
are in some sense present in human beings at birth rather than learned or instilled through
N

social forces. Postmodernists insist that all, or nearly all, aspects of human psychology are
completely socially determined.
IG

• Language refers to and represents a reality outside itself. According to postmodernists,

language is not such a “mirror of nature,” as the American pragmatist philosopher Richard
Rorty characterized the Enlightenment view. Inspired by the work of the Swiss linguist
Ferdinand de Saussure, postmodernists claim that language is semantically self-contained, or
self-referential: the meaning of a word is not a static thing in the world or even an idea in the
mind but rather a range of contrasts and differences with the meanings of other words.
Because meanings are in this sense functions of other meanings—which themselves are
functions of other meanings, and so on—they are never fully “present” to the speaker or
hearer but are endlessly “deferred.” Self-reference characterizes not only natural languages
but also the more specialized “discourses” of particular communities or traditions; such
discourses are embedded in social practices and reflect the conceptual schemes and moral
and intellectual values of the community or tradition in which they are used. The postmodern

6
 view of language and discourse is due largely to the French philosopher and literary theorist
Jacques Derrida (1930–2004), the originator and leading practitioner of deconstruction.
• Human beings can acquire knowledge about natural reality, and this knowledge can be
justified ultimately on the basis of evidence or principles that are, or can be, known
immediately, intuitively, or otherwise with certainty. Postmodernists reject philosophical
foundationalism—the attempt, perhaps best exemplified by the 17th-century French
philosopher René Descartes’s dictum cogito, ergo sum (“I think, therefore I am”), to identify a
foundation of certainty on which to build the edifice of empirical (including scientific)
knowledge.
• It is possible, at least in principle, to construct general theories that explain many aspects of
the natural or social world within a given domain of knowledge—e.g., a general theory of
human history, such as dialectical materialism. Furthermore, it should be a goal of scientific
and historical research to construct such theories, even if they are never perfectly attainable in

IN
practice. Postmodernists dismiss this notion as a pipe dream and indeed as symptomatic of
an unhealthy tendency within Enlightenment discourses to adopt “totalizing” systems of
thought (as the French philosopher Emmanuel Lévinas called them) or grand

S.
“metanarratives” of human biological, historical, and social development (as the French
philosopher Jean-François Lyotard claimed). These theories are pernicious not merely

50 NT
because they are false but because they effectively impose conformity on other perspectives
or discourses, thereby oppressing, marginalizing, or silencing them. Derrida himself equated
the theoretical tendency toward totality with totalitarianism.
80 E
Q9. Write a note on the conflicting views on Indian Renaissance.
26 NM
Ans.
91 G
SI
AS
U
98
O
N
IG

7
 IG
N
O
U
AS
98 SI

8
91 G
26 NM
80 E
50 NT
S.
IN