Theme VII

History Writing in
Colonial India

Time Line
Colonial Historiography
James Mill
Mountstuart Elphinstone
Elliott and Dowson
Vincent Smith
Nationalist Writings
Ramakrishna Gopal Bhandarkar
Kashi Prasad Jayaswal
Radha Kumud Mukherji
Ramesh Chandra Majumdar
History Writing in
Colonial India

British Empire in 1886

Author: Walter Crane (1845-1915)
Source: http://maps.bpl.org/id/M8682/
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiography_of_the_British_Empire#/media/File:Imperial_ Federation,_
Map_of_the_World_Showing_the_Extent_of_the_British_Empire_in_1886_(levelled).jpg

316
 Colonial History Writing
UNIT 17 COLONIAL HISTORY WRITING*
Structure
17.0 Objectives
17.1 Introduction
17.2 Main Ideas of Colonial Historiography
17.3 Some Important Colonial Historians
17.3.1 James Mill
17.3.2 Mountstuart Elphinstone
17.3.3 Henry Elliott and John Dowson
17.3.4 Vincent Smith
17.4 Summary
17.5 Answers to Check Your Progress Exercises
17.6 Suggested Readings
17.7 Instructional Video Recommendations

17.0 OBJECTIVES
This Unit is concerned about the histories written during the colonial period by
colonial administrator and scholars. This will acquaint you to the similarities and
differences between their ideas of Indian history. After reading this Unit, you will:
• learn about the history and basic ideas of colonial history-writing,
• be able to make comparison between various colonial historians, and
• be able to trace the ideas of these historians as they developed with the
advancement of British rule in India.

17.1 INTRODUCTION
Colonial history-writing was that stream of historiography which was mostly
developed by the administrator-scholars who wanted to historically understand
and depict India with a view to the continuation of the British colonial rule. Thus,
to gain knowledge about India, turn this knowledge into forms of history, and
seek the continuation of unequal British relations with the colony were what the
efforts of the colonial historians involved. In this Unit, we will try to understand
the important formulations of colonial history-writing and the manner in which
these ideas were reflected in the writings of colonial historians.

17.2 MAIN IDEAS OF COLONIAL

HISTORIOGRAPHY
Colonial historiography was not uniform or homogeneous. Since it developed
over a period of two hundred years since the middle of the eighteenth century, the
colonial historiography encompassed various trends within it which sometimes
opposed each other. There were basically three broad trends within colonial
historiography: Orientalist, Evangelicalist, and Anglicist. Sometimes in some

* Prof. S.B. Upadhyay, School of Social Sciences, Indira Gandhi National Open University,
New Delhi 317
History Writing in historians all these three trends were mixed.
Colonial India
Since the late eighteenth century, there had been attempts to write history of India
along European patterns. During this period, Enlightenment was in full force in
many European countries. Enlightenment thinkers, particularly Voltaire and
Diderot, were critical of malpractices involved in European colonisation of various
countries and they also admired several aspects of Asian civilisations. In the Indian
context, the influence of Enlightenment resulted in giving rise to what has been
called ‘Orientalism’. It involved an appreciation of the Indian civilisation and an
attempt to understand Indian perspectives and knowledge-systems. William Jones,
Henry Colebrooke, Charles Wilkins, H.H. Wilson, and James Prinsep were among
the most important Orientalists who laid the foundations of Indian history during
colonial period. Their writings were mainly on the culture and history of ancient
India and they quite often depicted the medieval period of Indian history as a dark
age like the European Middle Ages.
The Evangelical trend was severely critical of Indian tradition as a whole which it
viewed from the religious perspective of Christianity. The aim of its proponents
was to denigrate all periods of pre-British Indian culture and civilisation so as to
facilitate conversions. Charles Grant and William Ward were the most important
Evangelical historians.
The Anglicist trend also derived from Enlightenment and it was secular, but it placed
India very low on the scale of civilisation and wanted to introduce administrative,
educational, and economic improvements through colonial government. It considered
modern Western civilisation as infinitely superior in every respect. James Mill was the
most important representative of this trend.
There were some historians with mixed tendencies who derived from various
ideological currents. They were both appreciative and critical of Indian civilisation
and culture. They also tended to focus more on a historical narrative without much
value judgment. Historians like Mounstuart Elphinstone and Vincent Smith were
among them.
Although these trends differed from each other, they shared a lot of common
characteristics which together formed colonial historiography. These may be
summarised as follows:
1) The colonial historiography promoted the cause of the British colonial rule in
India. Although some historians sometimes were critical of its excesses, they
argued for its supposedly beneficial impact on India and, on the whole,
supported its continuation.
2) They believed that the contemporary India was at a lower stage of civilisation
which needed improvement and this was possible only through the supposedly
enlightened British colonial government. They thought that the Western science
and technology would serve to uplift the Indians into modern age. Thus, the
backwardness of India could be improved only through the intervention of
the British ideas and administration.
3) The contemporary Western civilisation was superior in all respects and the
Indians should emulate Western values to better their position. The idea of a
linear movement of civilisations from primitive to the scientific was very
318
 common and it was generally held that India represented the lower ends of the Colonial History Writing
scale while the modern Western civilisation was the pinnacle of progress.
4) It was generally believed that India had no history. Whatever passed as history
was actually just a collection of fables, legends, and myths. Therefore, it was
the project of the colonial historiography to provide India with a history.
5) According to colonial historiography, India was a stagnant country of stagnant
village societies whose population is immobile, and it could be put on the
path of progress only by the efforts of the colonial regime.
6) The colonial historians believed that the Indian society had always been divided
into castes, communities, and sects. Moreover, there had never been a political
unity in India, except perhaps during the periods of a few big empires. It was
only the British colonial rule that imparted a semblance of unity which,
however, could only be imposed from above. And as soon as the colonial
government would withdraw, Indian society would be plunged into anarchy
and mutual warfare.
7) Colonial historiography promoted the idea of ‘oriental despotism’ which meant
that all the Indian kings and rulers were autocratic despots and the political
character of India was basically despotic. Only the colonial government could
put India on the path of democracy by supplying democratic institutions in
limited doses.
8) Many colonial historians showed a bitterly critical attitude towards the growing
nationalist movement which they considered as the handiwork of a few selfish
English-educated individuals. They believed that the nationalist movement
would not lead to any betterment of India but actually sink India into political
chaos and anarchy. They also thought that the Indians were ungrateful for
agitating against the benevolent rule of the British. Although there were some
colonial historians who were sympathetic towards growing nationalism, some
others were openly hostile.

17.3 SOME IMPORTANT COLONIAL HISTORIANS

Although there have been a large number of colonial historians, we will select
only four important colonial historians for discussion in this Unit. They have been
chosen because of their relative importance in the development of colonial
historiography in particular and Indian historiography in general. Two of these
historians had a negative attitude towards Indian civilisation. These were James
Mill and Henry Elliot (John Dowson was basically an editor of Elliot’s work which
was published posthumously). On the other hand, two other historians – Mounstuart
Elphinstone and Vincent Smith – were generally appreciative or less critical of
Indian civilisation.

17.3.1 James Mill

Although Robert Orme was the first official colonial historian of India, James
Mill (1773-1836) is considered as the foremost among the founders of colonial
historiography. His History of British India (written between 1806 and 1818 and
published in six volumes) was the most influential book on Indian history
during the nineteenth century. Although it was titled as a history of the British 319
History Writing in India, its first three volumes covered the ancient and medieval India and the
Colonial India only the next three volumes were concerned about the British rule in India.
Conceived and written in opposition to the Orientalist writings in India,
particularly that of William Jones, this book was a ‘source of the deepest and
most lasting prejudices against Indian civilisation’ (Upadhyay 2016: 436). Mill
never came to India, did not know any Indian language, and based his work
entirely on partial study of books and materials on India written and collected
over the years. He did not have much use of the voluminous data gathered by
the East India Company from India, and wrote a mainly judgmental history. In
this form of history, if facts for a particular argument could not be found about
one country, facts about other countries could be supplied to fill the gaps. He
did this to degrade and demean the Indian, particularly the Hindu civilisation.
Yet, his book was adopted as a textbook for the young civil servants who
came to India. Mill represented the mindset of the rising imperialist middle
classes in Britain in the early decades of the nineteenth century and the reason
for the success of his book can be explained by this factor.
Mill conceived history ‘as a process of civilisation’. Moreover, while William
Jones tried to find closeness between British and Indian cultures, Mill
emphatically laid stress on ‘the evolutionary gap between contemporary Indian
society and the progressive West’ (Gottlob 2003: 97). Mill divided Indian
history into three compartments – Hindu, Muslim and British. He believed
that before the coming of the British, all Indian rulers were despotic and
autocratic. On all parameters of civilisational achievements, Mill placed India
at the bottom among various countries, with the European countries on top.
Mill completely rejected the Orientalist idea that ancient Indian civilisation
was among the best in its times. Instead, Mill asserted that it was a ‘hideous
state of society’ with its degrading and pernicious caste system. According to
him, despotic kings and superstitious priests made the Hindus the ‘most
enslaved portion of the human race’.
James Mill regarded Hinduism as an incoherent and irrational system of belief
totally dominated by the Brahmans, and written in a language of ‘unparalleled
vagueness’. According to him, the ancient Hindu religious texts, the Vedas, were
‘all vagueness and darkness, incoherence, inconsistency and confusion’. They
form ‘one of the most extravagant of all specimens of discourse without ideas.
The fearless propensity of a rude mind to guess where it does not know, never
exhibited itself in more fantastic and senseless form’. The ideas expressed in
Hinduism ‘are in the highest degree absurd, mean and degrading’ and, he wrote:
No people, how rude and ignorant soever, who have been so far advanced as to leave
us memorials of their thoughts in writing, have ever drawn a more gross and disgusting
picture of the universe than what is presented in the writings of the Hindus. In the
conception of it no coherence, wisdom, or beauty, ever appears: all is disorder, caprice,
passion, contest, portents, prodigies, violence, and deformity.
James Mill, History of India

Even in the field of literature, in which the ancient Indians were regarded as
excellent, Mill criticises them. According to him, Mahabharata and Ramayana,
are not only mere extravagant and unnatural … but are less ingenious, more monstrous
and have less of anything that can engage the affection, awaken sympathy or excel in
administration, revenge or terror ... They are excessively prolix and insipid. They are
320 often, through long passages, trifling and childish to a degree which those acquainted
 with only European poetry can hardly conceive of the style in which they are Colonial History Writing
composed... They exhibit imperfection, inflation, metaphors … obscurity, tautology,
repetition-verbosity, confusion, incoherence…
Cited in S. C. Mittal, 1995, vol. 1: 24-25

In this way, James Mill set an extremist tone to downgrade Indian civilisation and
culture. Although his views about Indian civilisation were not always accepted by
other colonial historians, he nevertheless was quite popular among general British
readers.
Check Your Progress-1
1) Discuss the important ideas of colonial historiography.
..........................................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................................
2) In what ways do you think that James Mill was a colonial historian?
..........................................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................................

17.3.2 Mountstuart Elphinstone

While James Mill had never been to India, Elphinstone (1779-1859) had lived in
India for a long time as an administrator and scholar. His familiarity with Indian
society, literature and languages resulted in his better understanding of India. He
was also critical of Mill’s history for its cynicism and a very biased account of
Indians and Indian civilisation. He did not accept Mill’s narrow utilitarian
framework either. He believed that although Mill’s history was popular in Britain,
it would not get the similar reception in India. Elphinstone was very critical of
Mill’s work and considered it prejudicial to the Indians. He wrote:
I see that Mill is much more candid in the English part of his History … than I found
him in the native part; his harshness lying more in sneers and sarcastic expression
than in colouring the facts, or even judging of them. I believe he is mistaken in some
of his opinions, and that he goes too much into controversy instead of giving results.
Cited in S.C. Mittal 1995, vol. 1: 61

Elphinstone’s History of Hindu and Muhammedan India (1841) and the

unfinished History of British Power in the East were written as a rival account
of India which differed from Mill’s history in several respects. He was more
appreciative of Indian cultural achievements. He thought that the Eastern
countries in general, and India in particular, had reached a high level of civilisation
in the ancient past compared to many other countries, including the European
countries. He admired the early Indian achievements in various branches of
literature, philosophy, mathematics, religions, and law. He believed that ‘Hindus
were once in a higher condition, both moral and intellectual, than they are now;
and, as even in their present state of depression, they are on a footing of equality
with any people out of Europe’ (cited in Upadhyay 2016: 440).
The learning of the ancient Hindus was of a high order and ‘they were already in
possession of a light which was but faintly perceived even by the loftiest intellects
in the best days of Athens’. He considered the Hindu civilisation superior to their 321
History Writing in rivals in the ancient world because of their many intellectual achievements. He
Colonial India felt that in several fields the ancient Indians were ‘the teachers and not the learners’.
He wrote:
There is no question of the superiority of the Hindus over their rivals in the perfection
to which they brought the science. Not only is Aryabhatta superior to Diaphantus …
but he and his successor press hard upon the discoveries of algebraists who lived
almost in our own time. Cited in S.C. Mittal 1995, vol. 1: 65

In this sense, the early Indians were so advanced that they ‘lived almost in our
own world’ (cited in S.C. Mittal 1995, vol. 1: 64). He also did not think that
the caste system was a divisive or inhibiting factor in the cultural and
intellectual development of India. He wrote that ‘Notwithstanding the
institution of caste, there is no country where men rise with more ease from
the lowest rank to the highest. The first nabab (now king) of Oude, was a petty
merchant; the first peishwa, a village accountant; the ancestors of Holcar were
goatherds and those of Sindhia slaves’ (cited in Upadhyay 2016: 440).
In the last part of his History, he covered the rule of Muslim kings in India. He
tries to present a balanced view of this period also. He put his point across by
comparing the rule of Akbar with that of Aurangzeb and was appreciative of
Akbar for his tolerant policies which earned him the loyalty of his Hindu
subjects also and led to the unity of the country. On the contrary, he criticised
the rule of Aurangzeb, who overturned Akbar’s tolerant and inclusive policies
which resulted in the alienation of the Hindus. Aurangzeb’s bigoted policies
gave rise to the rebellions among the Marathas, Sikhs, Jats and others.
However, despite his praise of past Indian rulers, Elphinstone, like other
colonial historians, believed that in his contemporary times the superiority of
the Western civilisation was uncontested. He also never doubted the legitimacy
of the colonial rule and its beneficial effects of Indians.

17.3.3 Henry Elliott and John Dowson

Henry Elliot (1808-1853) and John Dowson (1820-1881) are considered as
important colonial historians who prepared a comprehensive collection of Indo-
Persian histories. Elliot’s initial historical work on India was the Bibliographical
Index to the Historians of Muhammedan India (1849), followed by a short book
on the Arabs in Sindh (1853). His main work, however, was eight-volume History
of India as told by its own Historians, published after his death between 1866 and
1877, which was edited and finalised by John Dowson. For many decades, these
selections from the writings of the medieval historians of India have been used as
important sources by medieval historians. But some historians have also criticised
them, because these colonial historians distort the actual picture of medieval Indian
polity and society.
The History of India was not ‘a simple reproduction of the writings of the medieval
Indian historians, but a prejudiced filtering process’ within larger European
academic convention (Upadhyay 2016: 443). One important purpose of Elliot was
to provide information about the agrarian history of medieval India, the rural social
classes and the methods of collecting revenues, because they were not much known
in the middle of the nineteenth century. But his aim was larger. He wanted his
selections to serve broader academic purpose of creating ‘useful depositories of
322 knowledge from which the labour and diligence of succeeding scholars may extract
materials for the creation of a better and more solid structure’ (cited in Wahi 1990: Colonial History Writing
71). This interest in the reconstruction of the Muslim history of India was reflected
in Elliot’s persuasion of the Company to preserve the books and manuscripts in
the libraries of the Nawab of Awadh despite financial constraints. He was also in
touch with the Orientalists such as H.H. Wilson and corresponded with them.
Yet, the colonialist bias was clear in the severe denigration of the Muslim rule.
Even Indo-Muslim historiography was not spared. H.M. Elliot declared that they
were no better than annals:
It is almost a misnomer to style them histories. They can scarcely claim to rank higher
than Annals… They comprise, for the most part nothing but a mere dry narration of
events, conducted with reference to chronological sequence, never grouped
philosophically according to their relations. Without speculation on causes or effects;
without a reflection or suggestion which is not of the most puerile and contemptible
kind; and without any observations calculated to interrupt the monotony of successive
conspiracies, revolts, intrigues, murders, and fratricides… Where fairy tales and fictions
are included under the general name of history we cannot expect to learn much
respecting the character, pursuits, motives, and actions of historians.
Cited in Upadhyay 2016: 414

Even when ‘we are somewhat relieved from the contemplation of such scenes
when we come to the accounts of the earlier Moghal Emperors, we have what is
little more inviting in the records of the stately magnificence and ceremonious
observances of the Court, and the titles, jewels, swords, drums, standards, elephants,
and horses bestowed upon the dignitaries of the Empire’. So, Elliot wrote:
If the artificial definition of Dionysius be correct, that “History is Philosophy teaching
by examples,” then there is no Native Indian Historian… and [of] very bad ones, we
have ample store, though even in them the radical truth is obscured, by the hereditary,
official, and sectarian prepossessions of the narrator; but of philosophy, which deduces
conclusions calculated to benefit us by the lessons and experience of the past, which
adverts on the springs and consequences of political transactions, and offers sage
counsel for the future, we search in vain for any sign or symptom. Of domestic history
also we have in our Indian Annalists absolutely nothing… By them society is never
contemplated, either in its conventional usages or recognized privileges; its constituent
elements or mutual relations; in its established classes or popular institutions; in its
private recesses or habitual intercourses. In notices of commerce, agriculture, internal
police, and local judicature, they are equally deficient.

So, Elliot said, these medieval historical works ‘may be said to be deficient in
some of the most essential requisites of History… In [these medieval] Indian
Histories there is little which enables us to penetrate below the glittering
surface, and observe the practical operation of a despotic Government and
rigorous and sanguinary laws, and the effect upon the great body of the nation
of these injurious influences and agencies’ (Elliot’s Preface to History of India,
1867, vol. 1, xix-xx).
Their history depicted Muslim rule in a very negative light. According to them,
the Muslim rule was disastrous for the Indian people in general, and the Hindus
in particular. The Muslim rulers were generally despotic and tyrannical who
never gave a thought to the welfare of their Hindu subjects. Oppression,
exploitation and denial of religious freedom to the Hindus were quite common.
The Hindus were attacked, massacred, enslaved and converted, their temples
and other places of worship were looted and destroyed, and their women were
abducted and enslaved or forced into marriages. These statements made in
Elliot’s ‘Preface’, first published in 1849 and later given in the famous History 323
History Writing in in 1867, clearly followed the two-nation theory in all respects, and considered
Colonial India the British rule a major advance in every way and a deliverer of the Hindus
from Muslim tyranny. Elliot and Dowson sharply divided the Muslims and
Hindus in India, by equating medieval India completely with the Muslims.
According to them, although the Muslims did not remain foreigners in India,
the government and its laws and policies were overwhelmingly tilted in favour
of the Muslims. The Hindus always remained the subjects. During the whole
of medieval period, there was no freedom for the people and no economic
progress. Thus,
Under such rulers, we cannot wonder that the fountains of justice are corrupted ; that
the state revenues are never collected without violence and outrage ; that villages are
burnt, and their inhabitants mutilated or sold into slavery ; that the officials, so far
from affording protection, are themselves the chief robbers and usurpers ; that parasites
and eunuchs revel in the spoil of plundered provinces ; and that the poor find no
redress against the oppressor’s wrong.

From this, they concluded that ‘the common people must have been plunged into
the lowest depths of wretchedness and despondency. The few glimpses we have
… of Hindus slain for disputing with Muhammadans, of general prohibitions against
processions, worship, and ablutions, and of other intolerant measures, of idols
mutilated, of temples razed, of forcible conversions and marriages, of proscriptions
and confiscations, of murders and massacres, and of the sensuality and drunkenness
of the tyrants who enjoined them, show us that this picture is not overcharged…’
(Elliot’s ‘Preface’ to History of India, 1867, vol. 1, xx-xxv).
They argued that the British colonial government had done more for the people
of India, particularly the Hindus, in fifty years than the Muslim governments
had done in five hundred years. The colonial government built roads, canals,
bridges and introduced many schemes of public welfare which far surpassed
any administrative measures undertaken even under the best of the Muslim
rulers. They thought that the British rule was the best for India, as it was
benevolent and held and administered India for the benefit of the Indians.
They argued,
When we see the withering effects of the tyranny and capriciousness of a despot, we
shall learn to estimate more fully the value of a balanced constitution. When we see
the miseries which are entailed on present and future generations by disputed claims
to the crown, we shall more than ever value the principle of a regulated succession,
subject to no challenge or controversy. In no country have these miseries been greater
than in India. In no country has the recurrence been more frequent, and the claimants
more numerous…. we have already, within the half-century of our dominion, done
more for the substantial benefit of the people, than our predecessors … were able to
accomplish in more than ten times that period…
Elliot’s Preface to History of India, 1867, vol. 1, xxv-xxvii

17.3.4 Vincent Smith

Vincent Smith (1848-1920) is considered as the most important colonial historian in
the last phase of British colonial rule in India. He is also regarded as the most important
colonial historian of India after James Mill. His Early History of India (1904) was a
very successful book on Indian history which went through several editions. His more
comprehensive Oxford History of India (1919) was also held in high regard. Both
these works were prescribed as standard textbooks in Indian colleges and even schools.
Apart from these, he also published History of Fine Arts in India and Ceylon (1911),
324
and Indian Constitutional Reform Viewed in the Light of History (1919). His important Colonial History Writing
achievement was to present Indian history on a firm chronological basis organised
around political events, dynasties, and great individuals. Smith’s books presented an
authoritative summation of the state of knowledge up to his times. Therefore, his
histories were unrivalled as textbooks in most Indian universities for many decades to
come.
Vincent Smith generally presented his histories as a balanced and impartial
view of India. In his Oxford History Smith gives his own idea about his history-
writing on India, in which he emphasised that, contrary to the opinion of many
people, the Indian history did not begin with the British colonial rule over
India:
The value and interest of history depend largely on the degree in which the present is
illuminated by the past… A new book on Indian history must be composed in a new
spirit, as it is addressed to a new audience. Certain is that the history of India does not
begin with the battle of Plassey, as some people think it ought to begin, and that a
sound knowledge of the older history will always be a valuable aid in the attempt to
solve the numerous problems of modern India.
Cited in A.L. Basham in C.H. Philips (ed.), 1961: 267

Because of his professional approach, Smith’s history avoided the value judgments
found in writings of many colonial historians. Moreover, he also provided a coherent
account of the political history of India before the Muslim conquest. He claimed
‘to present the story of ancient India in the form of a connected narrative’ and
‘with impartiality’ (cited in Upadhyay 2016: 444). Although he was an admirer of
Greek achievements in arts, literature, culture, and military matters, he was also
highly appreciative of the Indian kings such as Chandragupta and Ashoka Maurya
(in the third and fourth centuries BCE), the Gupta Emperors (fourth to fifth centuries
CE), and Harsha (seventh century CE). He wrote that the rule of these Indian
kings could be compared with the best rulers in Europe.
However, he thought that after the death of Harsha, disruptive forces began to operate
which resulted in the fragmentation of Indian polity. A big number of small states
emerged which constantly fought with each other draining the resources of the country.
This anarchic state of affairs continued for many centuries and the weak Indian states
could not resist the attacks by Arabs, Turks and Afghans. Except for brief periods of
centralised administration, he argued, the general tendency in Indian polity and society
was that of fragmentation. According to him:
Harsha’s death loosened the bonds which restrained the disruptive forces always
ready to operate in India, and allowed them to produce their natural results, a
medley of petty states, with ever-varying boundaries, and engaged in unceasing
internecine war. Such was India when first disclosed to European observation in
the fourth century B.C., and such it always has been, except during the
comparatively brief periods in which a vigorous central government has compelled
the mutually repellent molecules of the body politic to check their gyrations and
submit to the grasp of a superior controlling force.
Cited in A.L. Basham in C.H. Philips (ed.), 1961: 271

Thus, according to him, central authority in the form of benevolent despotism had to
be imposed from outside to check the natural tendency of disunity in India. According
to him, ‘No form of government except the autocratic was…suitable to Indian
conditions’. Thus, the British rule was needed to maintain unity and rule of law and
to save Indian people from the ‘hideous state of society’ (Upadhyay 2016: 444). He
325
History Writing in asserted that his history of India would ‘give the reader a notion of what India
Colonial India always has been when released from the control of a supreme authority, and what
she would be again, if the hand of the benevolent despotism which how holds her
in its iron grasp should be withdrawn’ (cited in A.L. Basham in C.H. Philips (ed.)
1961: 271).
Check Your Progress-2
1) Discuss the similarities and differences between Mounstuart Elphinstone on
the one hand and Elliot and Dowson on the other.
..........................................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................................
2) Write a note on the history-writing of Vincent Smith.
..........................................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................................

17.4 SUMMARY
Colonial historiography was evolved by the colonial administrators and scholars
who wanted the colonial rule to continue. Their history-writing was an attempt
to know about India, shape Indian history into European forms, and utilise it
for intellectual dominance. There were several differences between various
colonial historians. However, all of them were convinced about the superiority
of modern Western civilisation and all of them wanted that the British rule
over India should continue smoothly. The colonial histories written over a
period of two centuries, from the middle of eighteenth to the middle of twentieth
century, provided the ideological justification for the colonial rule in India.

17.5 ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS

EXERCISES
Check Your Progress-1
1) See Section 17.2
2) See Section 17.3
Check Your Progress-2
1) See Sub-sections 17.3.2 and 17.3.3
2) See Sub-section 17.3.4

17.6 SUGGESTED READINGS

Gottlob, Michael, (ed.) (2003) Historical Thinking in South Asia: A Handbook of
Sources from Colonial Times to the Present (New Delhi: Oxford University Press).
Mittal, S.C., (1995) India Distorted: A Study of British Historians on India, Vol. 1
326 (New Delhi: M.D. Publications).
Philips, C.H., (1961) Historians of India, Pakistan and Ceylon (London and New Colonial History Writing
York: Oxford University Press).
Upadhyay, Shashi Bhushan, (2016) Historiography in the Modern World: Western
and Indian Perspectives (New Delhi: Oxford University Press).
Wahi, Tripta, (1990) ‘Henry Miers Elliot: A Reappraisal’, Journal of the Royal
Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, 1: 64-90.

17.7 INSTRUCTIONAL VIDEO

RECOMMENDATIONS
Writing History in Colonial Times
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMzMoG96YlQ

327
History Writing in
Colonial India UNIT 18 NATIONALISTS*
Structure
18.0 Objectives
18.1 Introduction
18.2 Understanding Nationalist Writings
18.3 Ramakrishna Gopal Bhandarkar
18.4 Kashi Prasad Jayaswal
18.5 Radha Kumud Mukherji
18.6 Ramesh Chandra Majumdar
18.7 Summary
18.8 Keywords
18.9 Answers to Check Your Progress Exercises
18.10 Suggested Readings
18.11 Instructional Video Recommendations

18.0 OBJECTIVES
This Unit introduces you to the writings of nationalist historians. After reading
this Unit, you will be able to;
• explain the meaning of nationalist in the context of history writings in India,
• get an idea of prominent nationalist historians of India, and
• discuss important works of nationalist historians.

18.1 INTRODUCTION
Historiography as an academic discipline developed in Europe in the nineteenth
century. Historians developed methodological foundations of writing history. In
spite of believing in objectivity and facts, writings of historians were influenced
by dominant ideas and beliefs of the particular time. Like the belief in the superiority
of one’s own civilisation and the idea of the difference between primitive and
civilised peoples resulted in creating the belief in inferiority of other cultures
compared to the Europeans and this had its roots in Enlightenment philosophy.
The universalisation of European historical thought in the nineteenth century led
to undermining the values of other civilisation as stagnant or without history.
Modernity became synonymous with Eurocentrism and this is very much visible
in initial writings of European national histories. India although invaded and
colonised had immense cultural tradition which colonisation could not destroy. In
India the British rulers used historical knowledge to maintain and legitimise their
power, but Indians used the historical knowledge as an emancipatory tool to develop
national consciousness and to fight for freedom. In this backdrop we will introduce
you to the works of nationalist historians and how Indian scholars tried to develop
a narrative of Indian past rejecting Eurocentric approach and drawing attention to
cultural tradition developed over the years in India.

* Prof. Swaraj Basu, School of Social Sciences, Indira Gandhi National Open University,
328 New Delhi
 Nationalists
18.2 UNDERSTANDING NATIONALIST WRITINGS
In the previous Unit, you have learnt about writing of Indian history by the colonial
rulers and intelligentsia. Imperialism and racism suppressed the cultural identity
of the indigenous people and tried to shape the historical consciousness of the
colonised country. Dominant notion was created through writings that people of
Ancient India had no sense of history. With the transformation of history into a
professional discipline in the nineteenth century the term colonial historiography
refers to those which were influenced by colonial ideology of domination. The
practice of writing about the colonial countries by the colonial rulers was influenced
by the rational of justifying the colonial rule. Histories of India written by James
Mill, Mountstuart Elphinstone, Vincent Smith and others tried to tell the story of
India’s progression towards civilisation under the tutelage of imperial power. In
their ‘civilising mission’ through historical writing the colonial rulers tried to
establish the idea of superiority of modern western civilisation and an uncritical
justification of the British rule. In fact James Mill’s idea of periodisation of Indian
history into Hindu, Muslim and British periods had major influence on Indian
history writing and later on Mill’s periodisation was replaced with the term Ancient,
Medieval and Modern. Mill was of the opinion that the Hindus had no sense of
history and their culture was stagnant. He wrote, ‘From the scattered hints,
contained in the writings of the Greeks, the conclusion has been drawn that the
Hindus, at the time of Alexander’s invasion, were in a state of manners, society,
and knowledge, exactly the same that in which they were discovered by the nations
of modern Europe’. This depiction of India in colonial historiography provoked
Indians to write Indian history from a national point of view representing the
national culture and historical tradition.
Nationalist historical writings represent the attempts made by Indians to portray in
proper historical perspective India’s tradition and cultural heritage. Nationalist approach
played a vital role since late nineteenth century in developing a historical narrative
based on analysis of historical sources to prove the hollowness of the colonial historical
narrative. Indians welcomed historical scholarship and ideas imported to India by the
Britishers but at the same time questioned Eurocentric perspective and tried to create
a counter narrative of India’s past based on analysis of the classical Indian texts and
other historical sources. Pride in national glory helped in creating new historical
consciousness to restore national self-esteem. Nationalist writings not only exposed
the imperialist bias in history writings but also helped in developing public opinion
against the divisive policy of the colonial rulers. Analysing the economic consequences
of imperialism nationalist historiography provided an ideological basis of the freedom
struggle. I would like to refer here what Swami Vivekananda spoke to a group of
young men at Alwar on the importance of writing of history. He said,
Study Sanskrit, but along with it study Western science as well. Learn accuracy,
my boys. Study and labour, so that the time will come when you can put our history
on a scientific basis. Now, Indian history is disorganized. It has no chronological
accuracy. The histories of our country written by English writers cannot but be
weakening to our minds, for they tell only of our downfall. How can foreigner,
who understand very little of our manners and customs, or our religion and
philosophy, write faithful, unbiased histories of India. Naturally, many false notions
and wrong inferences have found their way into them. Nevertheless the Europeans
have shown us how to proceed in making research into our ancient history. Now it
is for us to strike out an independent path of historical research for ourselves; to
study the Vedas and the Puranas and ancient annals of India; and from this to make 329
History Writing in it our life work and discipline to write accurate, sympathetic and soul-inspiring
Colonial India histories of the land. It is for Indians to write Indian history. Therefore set yourselves
to the task of rescuing our lost and hidden treasures from oblivion. Even as one
whose child has been lost does not rest until he has found it, so do you never cease
to labour until you have revived the glorious past of India in the consciousness of
the people. That will be true nation education, and with its advancement a true
national spirit will be awakened.
Cited in ‘History Writing and Nationalism’, in Prabuddha Bharata, August, 2005

What Swami Vivekananda spoke gives an idea about the need of reinventing India
highlighting its glorious tradition through systematic research and creating a sense
of pride among Indians and developing a true national spirit. This proves the fact
that there was growing feeling among Indian intelligentsia to relook at India’s
past not through the writings of the colonial rulers but through its great classical
texts to understand the true spirit of Indian civilisation. This was the project
undertaken by a group of Indian historians since late nineteenth century. It was
realised that history was essential to the making of Indian nation. History needs to
be reconstructed through readings of India’s past by Indians moving away from
the distortion made by the colonial rulers. We were told about successive foreign
invasion of India but hardly any reference to how Indians fought to resist foreign
invasion, we were told about our static social system but not about the uniqueness
of India’s civilisation. Nationalist historians’ major concern was to remove the
distortions based on historical research. The nationalist history had the task to
contest earlier imperialist historiography and also to correct the divisive trend in
writing of history that gained ground from the early part of the twentieth century.
Spirit of the project of national history writing was very well expressed in a note
written by none other than Rabindra Nath Tagore. ‘To know my country in truth
one has to travel to that age when she realized her soul, and thus transcended her
physical boundaries, when she revealed her being in a radiant magnanimity which
illumined the Easter horizon making her recognized as their own by those in alien
shore who were awakened into a great surprise of life...’ (Forward to the Journal
of Greater India Society, 1934). Nationalist historiography is thus seen as response
to colonial distortions of Indian history with a specific objective to help in
developing Indian identity and national spirit. Although nationalist historians
borrowed western historical research method based on epigraphical, numismatics
and archeological research but at the same time tried to construct a narrative of
India’s past through the readings of various sources in an objective manner.
We will introduce you in subsequent sections to the writings of some important
nationalist historians. Nationalist historians are those whose writings had nationalist
bias and wrote Indian history during the colonial rule. Their approach and attitude
helped in promoting nationalist sentiment and strengthening national identity. Their
importance and contribution can be best understood in the background of colonial
domination. Through their writings invoking the glorious ancient civilisation of
India they succeeded in inspiring Indian intelligentsia to appreciate the fundamental
unity of India cutting across geographical boundaries. Rajendralal Mitra is
considered pioneer of the nationalist historians in India who published on history
of Odisha, Bengal, some Vedic texts and the book entitled Indo-Aryans. He was
influenced by cultural tradition of ancient India and also by Orientalist scholars
like Jones and Colebrooke who believed in the glorification of the oriental past
but Mitra adopted rational and scientific approach in interpreting ancient Indian
330 society. We will introduce you to the writings of some major nationalist historians
who wrote objective history of ancient India as a response to the distortions made Nationalists
by the British writers.

18.3 RAMAKRISHNA GOPAL BHANDARKAR

R.G. Bhandarkar (1837-1925) was the earliest Indian historian of ancient India
who had developed critical use of sources in writing history. Bhandarkar was
influenced by German historian Ranke in his approach to history. He wrote
Early History of the Deccan (1884) and A Peep into the Early History of India
(1890) besides other research papers and books based on a thorough and critical
analysis of all sources available till then. He was an eminent indologist and
his research papers on Indian antiquities, literature and language in leading
journals provided new insights to understand Indian civilisation. Besides being
an excellent scholar he was also a great social reformer and joined the
Paramhansa Sabha to spread liberal ideas against social evils. He helped in
developing critical approach in writing history. He devoted his entire life in
studying Indian history, culture and Sanskrit language. Instead of seeing good
in everything of India’s past he urged young scholars to develop critical and
comparative method of enquiry into the past. In one of his lectures to young
scholars he observed:
A critical inquirer is one who does not accept an account of an occurrence just
as it is presented to him. He subjects it to certain tests calculated to prove its
truth or otherwise. He takes care to ascertain whether the person giving an
account was an eyewitness to the occurrence, and if so, whether he was
unprejudiced…Before admitting a narrative as historical, one ought to ask
himself if the object of the author was to please the reader and excite the feeling
of wonder, or to record events as they occurred.
We find in the introduction of his book A Peep into the Early History of India the
reflection of this belief when he wrote that ‘nothing but dry truth should be his
object’. Explaining the importance of using coins, inscriptions, archeological remains
and foreign traveler’s accounts to write history as sources he wrote:
In using all these materials, however, one should exercise a good deal of keen
critical power. No one who does not possess this power can make a proper use of
them. A good many years ago, I delivered a lecture on the critical and comparative
method of study, which has been published. To what I have stated there, I shall
only add that in dealing with all these materials one should proceed on such
principles of evidence as are followed by a judge. One must in the first place be
impartial, with no particular disposition to “find in the materials before him
something that will tend to the glory of his race and country, nor should he have an
opposite prejudice against the country or its people. Nothing but dry truth should
be his object; and he should in every case determine the credibility of the witness
before him and the probability or otherwise of what is stated by him. He should
ascertain whether he was an eye-witness or a contemporary witness, and whether
in describing a certain event he himself was not open to the temptation of
exaggeration or to the influence of the marvellous. None of the current legends
should be considered to be historically true, but an endeavour should be made to
find any germ of truth that there may be in them by evidence of another nature.
A Peep into the Early History of India

Elaborating the reason for writing history of India he drew attention to the fact that
there was no proper history of India although there were legends, myths, chronicles
and glorification of some rulers in the past. To fill this gap he took upon himself the
responsibility of writing an objective history of Indian civilisation. He wrote:
331
History Writing in
Colonial India
I think I may take it for granted that an Indian who has received English education
and has been introduced to the ancient history of European countries, naturally has
a desire to be acquainted with the ancient history of his own country, to know by
whom and how that country was governed in ancient times, or how its social and
religious institutions have grown up and what revolutions the country has gone
through; but means for the satisfaction of this desire are wanting. India unfortunately
has no written history. There are some chronicles written by Jainas and others
referring to kings and princes who lived from about the eighth to the eleventh
centuries of the Christian era and ruled over Gujarat and Rajputana. There are also
lives of individual kings such as the Sri-Harshacharita of Bana and the
Vikramahkadevacharita of Bilhana. The hero of the former ruled over Northern
India in the first half of the seventh century, and of the latter over Southern India in
the latter part of the eleventh and the early part of the twelfth century. The Puranas
contain genealogies of certain dynasties. With these exceptions, sometime ago we
had absolutely no knowledge of the history of the different provinces of India
before the foundation of the Mahomedan Empire. But the researches of European
and some Native scholars and antiquarians have thrown considerable light over
this dark period. The knowledge hitherto gathered cannot be pronounced to be
very satisfactory or to be as good as written books would have supplied.
A Peep into the Early History of India

Bhandarkar through his writings tried to develop the culture of critical use of
sources in constructing a narrative of India’s past rather than merely believing in
legends and glories. In the introduction of his book referred to above he explained
the importance of sources and how one should be objective in using various tools
of historical research with objectivity. His contribution in initiating objective
historical research based on study of various sources contributed immensely in
unearthing India’s past and provided a logical response to European criticism of
Indian history.
Check Your Progress-1
1) Explain the arguments of nationalist historians.
..........................................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................................
2) Write a note on the importance of sources in history writing as discussed by
R. G. Bhandarkar.
..........................................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................................

18.4 KASHI PRASAD JAYASWAL

Being inspired by nationalistic fervour while studying in London K. P. Jawaswal
(1881-1937) developed interest to understand history of ancient India. By
profession he was a barrister and started his career in Calcutta High Court and
later moved to Patna when Bihar got separated from Bengal. To fulfil his interest
in learning of India’s history he took training in epigraphy and archeology. Dr.
Rajendra Prasad once observed that ‘he was a historian by choice and instinct and
a lawyer by compulsion. His own inclinations and talents attracted him towards
History but the demands of the flesh dragged him towards law courts and law
332
reports…’ K. P. Jayaswal was keen to trace the historical development of Hindu
Law and for that he was looking for the roots of the constitutional agency or Nationalists
agencies which developed in different periods. This resulted in publishing his
monumental work Hindu Polity (1918). In this book he developed the argument
that parliamentary and democratic governments were in practice in ancient India
with representative assemblies. Before Jayaswal oriental scholars like Max Muller
had shown that Hindu Law had oldest pedigree of any known system of
Jurisprudence. But it was Jayaswal who proved that Hindu polity was based on a
system of constitutional history and rulers had developed legal system to rule
society and polity. He argued that Indian republics based on the principles of
representation and collective decision making were oldest in the ancient world. In
Hindu Polity themes discussed are as follows:
The Sovereign Assembly of the Vedic Times
The Judicial Assembly of the Vedic Times
Hindu Republics
Hindu Kingship
The Janapada
The Council of Ministers under Hindu Monarchy
Taxation
The Hindu Imperial Systems
Decay and Revival of Hindu Constitutional Traditions
He wrote, ‘The sources of our information extend over the vast field of Hindu
literature – Vedic, Classical and Prakrita and also the inscriptional and numismatic
records of the country. We are fortunate in having also a few technical treatises on
Hindu Politics left to us in the original’ (Hindu Polity, K. P. Jayaswal). He used
Sanskrit texts and inscriptions to develop his argument on Hindu polity in contrast
to the picture given by the colonial historians. His contribution is considered as
path breaking in understanding Hindu law and jurisprudence. His ideas helped in
developing nationalist historiography. Through his work he exploded the myth of
the prevalence of Oriental Despotism in India before the coming of the British. He
proved in his work the prevalence of self-government in India since the beginning
of its ancient civilisation. Referring to early Buddhist sources, Kautilya’s Arthasatra,
the Mahabharata, as well as Greek sources he argued the existence of a republican
tradition in India from sixth century BCE. Even the principle of representation
was in existence as early as Vedic times. He considered Paura and Janapada as
sovereign assemblies of the people. He wrote: ‘Even Kautilya, the greatest advocate
of monarchy, has to say that matters of state should be discussed by the Council of
Ministers and whatever the majority decides the king should carry out. It should
be noted that this rule is enjoined even when there is a body of Mantrins or cabinet
separate from the Mantri-Parishad’ (Hindu Polity). Besides Hindu Polity, his other
significant historical work was History of India 150 AD to 350 AD published in
1933. He tried to establish that democracy was an integral part of the ancient
Indian political tradition.

18.5 RADHA KUMUD MUKHERJI

Radha Kumud Mukherji (1884-1964) was known for his profound and many sided
scholarship. His vast knowledge of Indian classical texts and his understanding of
the relationship between nature and culture encouraged him to develop a narrative
of India’s fundamental unity as the basis of its statehood in contrast to the 333
History Writing in representation of India’s past in the colonial narrative. In his much referred work
Colonial India The Fundamental Unity of India, published in 1914, he argued that the idea of
India and its fundamental unity was very much part of its ancient culture. In contrast
to the idea popularised through the writings of the colonial historians that ‘India
was a mere collection of separate peoples, traditions and tongues existing side by
side with no sense of nationhood in common’, Mukherji drew attention to the
fundamental unity of India reflected through its culture and the evolution of a
civilisation. Mukherji tried to develop his narrative of India’s past using indigenous
sources pointing to the rich tradition of culture regardless of who ruled India. He
believed in the existence of cultural unity among the living within the geographical
boundary of India. In his opinion ‘Indian nationalism’ which was visible through
anti-colonial movement had its existence before the advent of the colonial rule.
According to him this nationalist consciousness was visible in the fundamental
cultural unity of India in spite of much diversity and in support of his argument he
referred the Vedas and Puranas as historical documents. Popular memory through
prayers and rituals, holy places spread across the regions point to this civilisational
identity. His other works like Nationalism in Hindu Culture, The Hindu Civilisation,
further elaborate the idea of civilisational oneness of Bharat (India). We will refer
here from his writings to explain his notion of fundamental unity of India to
elaborate his viewpoint. He wrote:
But unfortunately it has become by no means easy to think of India as a single
country. No picture of India is now more familiar to the Indian mind than that
which represents it to be a continent, or a collection of many countries rather than
one Country. For this is the picture that is drawn in most of the standard works on
Indian Geography taught in our schools. An English author of a geography for
Indian schools introduces his book with the following remarks: “India is commonly
thought of and spoken of as a single country. But this is not true, India is rather a
collection of countries.” According to Sir John Strachey, the great Anglo-Indian
authority, “this is the first and most essential thing to learn about India – that there
is not and never was an “India or even any country of India, possessing, according
to European ideas, any sort of unity, physical, political.” But Anglo-Indian opinion
itself is however by no means unanimous on the point. Mr. Vincent A. Smith, the
well-known authority on early Indian History, has delivered himself in a quite
different strain: “India, encircled as she is by seas and mountains, is indisputably a
geographical unit, and as such is rightly designated by one name.” Equally positive
and emphatic are the following words of Chisholm, one of the best known authorities
on Geography: “There is no part of the world better marked out by itself than
India, exclusive of Burma. It is a region indeed full of contrasts in physical features
and in climate, – but the features that divide it as a whole from surrounding region
are too clear to be overlooked”…

What is not generally known and recognized however is that the idea of this
fundamental unity is much older than British rule, that it is not a recent growth or
discovery but has a history running back to a remote antiquity. There are many
proofs to show that the great founders of Indian religion, culture and civilization
were themselves fully conscious of the geographical unity of their vast mother
country and sought in various ways to impress it on the popular consciousness…

Bharatavarsa is derived from Bharata as Rome is derived from Romulus. Bharata

is a great hero of Indian history and tradition, just as Romulus is of Roman. The
Rig-Veda first mentions him as the leader of a powerful Aryan tribe that played its
full part in the original struggles and conflicts by which Aryan polity and culture
were being shaped into proper form in the dawn of Indian history. The Aitareya
Brahmana refers to his hegemony and subsequent career of conquests leading to
his overlordship which is duly solemnized by the performance of the usual
Aswamedha sacrifice. This story is also followed up by the Srimad Bhagavata,
which applies to him the epithets Adhirat and Samrat i.e., king of kings, and
334
 describes his subjugation of a number of races, tribes and kingdoms such as the Nationalists
Kiritas, the Hunas, the Yavanas, the Paundras and the like, and his ultimate
renunciation of the world as an unreality in essence. Bharata, therefore, stood
before the multitudinous peoples inhabiting the country that was called after him
as the embodiment, the representative, of the dominant Aryan power which was
fast accomplishing its work of colonizing the whole country and bringing its different
parts under the unifying discipline of a common culture and civilisation.
Bharatavarsa is therefore another name for Aryanised India, the congenial fertile
soil where Aryan culture planted itself and attained its fruition, the chosen abode
which the pioneers of human civilisation adopted as the scene of their lahours for
the proper expression of their particular genius. And Bharata was held up as a
convenient symbol, a comprehensible token of this early renaissance, of the conquest
of a new thought and a new faith finding expression through their appropriate
literature, disciplines and institutions, social, economic and political, of the
accomplishment of a new cultural unity imposed upon and pervading a rich, manifold
variety, round which were gathered, as in a system of federation, different creeds,
cults and cultures with liberty to each to preserve its special features and genius
and contribute its own quota to enrich the central culture.
The Fundamental Unity of India, R. K. Mukherji

He argued that India did not require the British ‘civilising mission’ because it was
already ‘civilised’ and had its civilisational influence in South-east Asia before
the coming of the British. He referred to the geographical unity of India and argued
that the British had nothing to do with the unity in India which was very much in
existence in the consciousness of Hindus in ancient India. His ideas very much
influenced nationalist thinking.

18.6 RAMESH CHANDRA MAJUMDAR

R.C. Majumdar (1888-1980) wrote extensively on history of India and history
of Bengal starting from ancient India to freedom movement on different facets
of India’s history and culture. He began his writing with his monumental work
of classical India and a narrative of corporate life in ancient India and finished
with a monumental three-volume history of the freedom struggle in India. In
his book Ancient Indian Colonies in the Far East (1927) he explained the
spread of Hindu civilisation in South-East Asia. Spread of Indian civilisation
in the Far East seen as the success of maritime and colonial enterprise in ancient
India. He drew attention of the readers to the impact of Indian culture upon
the development of culture in the larger part of the continent of Asia. He wrote:
Having described the intercourse between India and the regions lying to its
west, north and north-east, I shall now proceed to discuss in some details the
part played by India in moulding the life and civilisation of the people living to
the east and south-east. As in the other case intercourse in this region also first
began by way of trade, both by land and sea. But soon it developed into regular
colonisation, and Indians established political authority in various parts of the
vast Asiatic continent that lay to the south of China proper and to the east and
south-east of India. Numerous hindu states rose and flourished during a period
of more than thousand years both on the mainland and in the islands of the
Malay Archipelago. Even when the Hindu rule became a thing of the past in
India itself, powerful kings bearing Hindu names were ruling over mighty
empires in these far-off domains. The Hindu colonists brought with them the
whole framework of their culture and civilisation and this was transplanted in
its entirety among the people who had not yet emerged from their primitive
barbarism. Ancient Indian Colonization in the Far East
In association with K. M. Munshi he edited multi-volume History and Culture
of the Indian People providing an alternative perspective to understand the
335
History Writing in evolution of Indian culture over a long period of time. He wrote, ‘…it would
Colonial India be difficult to maintain that the 4000 years of pre-Muslim India, of the history
and culture of which we possess a definite knowledge…should rank in
importance as equal with that of the Muslim period of about 400 or 500 years,
or the British period of less than 200 years.’ It is important to take note here
that Majumdar drew attention to the cultural continuity in India which is
traceable through history of several thousand years. This is considered as the
most unique character of Indian history.
Referring to Majumdar’s works Dilip K. Chakrabarti wrote,
Majumdar also developed the concept of “greater India” in the mainland and island
zone of Southeast Asia, researching the primary data from every major region and
offered a detailed and data-based account of the Indian presence in this vast territory.
Indian languages and scripts, Indian iconography and art styles, Indian temple
architecture, inscriptions in Sanskrit, kings bearing Indian names, Indian ritual – all
these have been intimately intertwined with the history and archaeology of such a
diverse and yet unified region. They were not certainly “colonies” in the modern
sense of the term; there was no exploitative machinery involved for the benefit of the
colonizing territory, but there were “Indianized” states all right, as there were in ancient
Xinxiang and many parts of central Asia, including Afghanistan and territories from
Turkmenistan to Kyrgyzistan and Tajikistan.
Chakrabarti, Dilip K., ‘Nationalism in the Study of Ancient Indian History’.
National Security, Vivekananda International Foundation Vol. IV (1) (2021) pp.
25-43; https://www.vifindia.org
R C Majumdar and other nationalist scholars argued that Indians had influenced
South-east Asians cultures and pointed to the Indian elements in their culture.
Majumdar also mentioned that how indigenous faiths and practices were partly
moulded by Indian elements.
Check Your Progress-2
1) How did Jayaswal explain the democratic nature of polity in ancient India?
..........................................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................................
2) Discuss Radha Kumud Mukherji’s analysis of India’s fundamental unity.
..........................................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................................
3) Explain R. C. Majumdar’s views on the cultural continuity of India and India’s
cultural contact with South-east Asia.
..........................................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................................

18.7 SUMMARY
Writings of nationalist historians that we have introduced to you above point
336
to the fact that they attempted to establish India as a great nation-contrary to
the colonial view of India particularly represented by John Stuart Mill. The Nationalists
essence of the colonial historiography was to prove that the British rule in
India helped in removing superstition and backwardness and bringing in cultural
modernisation of Indian people. Nationalist history writings demonstrated that
Indian civilisation is older than western civilisation. Ideas of democracy and
scientific knowledge were very much integral to ancient Indian civilisation.
They tried to prove the glorious tradition and the spirit of cultural unity visible
in India’s ancient civilisation. Nationalist project of history writing to a great
extent was influenced by the emerging nationalist movement since late
nineteenth century in India. At the same time by drawing attention of India’s
glorious past and its influence in the neighbouring South-east Asian countries
nationalist writers contributed towards the freedom movement. We have
selected here four important historians to explain the tradition of nationalist
writings. You have seen how R. G. Bhandarkar, K. P. Jayaswal, Radha Kumud
Mukherji, R. C. Majumdar made valuable contributions in writing history from
nationalist perspective.

18.8 KEYWORDS
Paramhansa Sabha A secret society formed in 1849 under the leadership
of Durgaram Mehtaji and Dadoba Pandurang to
oppose evils of the caste system and to eradicate
social discrimination on commensality
Paura and Janapada Often the two terms paura and janapada come
together in Ramayana. According to Dr. Jayaswal
paura was the assembly of the city presided over
by leading citizen or merchant; while janapada was
the assembly of the realm. It also wielded
constitutional powers. For Dr. Jayaswal they were
twin-representative assemblies on the pattern of the
two houses of parliament. However, according to
A.S. Altekar it denotes ‘citizens’ in general and were
not ‘constitutional/representatrive bodies

18.9 ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS

EXERCISES
Check Your Progress-1
1) See Section 18.2
2) See Section 18.3
Check Your Progress-2
1) See Section 18.4
2) See Section 18.5
3) See Section 18.6

337
History Writing in
Colonial India 18.10 SUGGESTED READINGS
Gottlob, Michael, (ed.) (2003) Historical Thinking in South Asia: A Handbook of
Sources from Colonial Times to the Present (New Delhi: Oxford University Press).

18.11 INSTRUCTIONAL VIDEO

RECOMMENDATIONS
19th Century : The period of Indian Renaissance
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKGqiAa1LCI
Tribute to Gopal Krishna Gokhale on his death anniversary | 19 February
2021
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZYibPgwHeM
Revisiting Nationalist Thought and the Colonial World
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jaZn9IqPJZg&t=58s

338