A couple of hundred years ago, it was stated that Indian

Civilization was characterised by a lack of historical writing and

a sense of history. Western historians regarded India possessed
‘no history’ until the British colonizers introduced in the 19th
century. The earliest and one of the positive results of British
conquering India was the recovery of ancient Indian history on
modern lines of historiography. . During the nineteenth century
Western observers in particular regarded ‘no history’ as implying
two things. On the one hand, it referred to the supposed
unchanging character of Indian civilization. South Asian society
before the advent of the Europeans was not only an Oriental
despotism, but also a static society that did not undergo any
historical change. From Hegel to Marx to Ranke, the notion
prevailed that Indian society was stagnant and immobile. It was
the lack of historical consciousness which was responsible for
India’s remaining outside the dynamic of world history. In general
it was maintained that history was a British import, that no Indian
historian had written history, and that James Mill’s (1773–1836)
‘History of British India’ in 1817 constituted the first history of
India. Of course, it would have been impossible to write a
national history of India, such as Hume’s History of England,
Robertson’s History of Scotland or the multiple histories of
France prior to 1800, because there was as yet no Indian nation,
and unlike Germany or Italy which at that time were also not
united politically, India did not possess a common national
language or an awareness of a common cultural identity. India,
despite its Sanskrit heritage, was divided by a large multiplicity of
languages. The only exception according to them was the twelfth-
century history of Kashmir, the Rajatarangini, written by
Kalhana.

The search for histories for early India began in 18th century; with
the influence of renaissance European scholars became conscious
of the historical literature recorded the past. The modern writing
of Indian history began with colonial perceptions of the Indian
past with that of the writings of scholar-administrators of the
English East India Company. It took shape with the beginnings of
colonial rule in various parts of the subcontinent from the
eighteenth century onwards. European scholars searched for
histories of India but could find none that conformed to the
familiar European view of what a history should be, a view
influenced in part by the thinking of the European Enlightenment.
It was in the search of reconstructing the lost past of India that the
Orientalist or Indologists took the task of writing Indian history.
The work of reconstruction had almost relied on information
derived from literature and archaeological evidences such as
inscription, coins and others. David kopf has shown that the
administrators of the company belonged from elite intellectual
milieu of the 18th century enlightment, hence, the ‘phenomenal
orientalist rediscovery of the Hindu Classical Age’ comes from.
Orientalists who subscribe to enlightment are of the view that the
difference between Europeans and Asians are not based on race
and nature, but on the basis of culture and custom. Though the
indologists began to reconstruct for their personal love and thrust
for the subject; but there are other reasons present which
contribute to the search for past. First, the adminstrators had to
be firm in the language and people of India to charge their
control. Secondly, the young Indologists got patron in the
governor-general of the company. With the establishment of the
Asiatic Society of Bengal by Willaim Jones provided a new light in
the way of the Indologists.
Indologists such as Sir William Jones (1746–94), who regarded
the civilization of ancient India as equal to that of ancient Greece
and indeed saw common cultural roots in both. Further Jones
suspected that some texts even if including myths and legends
contain some core to Indian history. Though Jones has been
rejected by many, most scholars dismiss them as entirely fanciful.
Jones discoveries of the Indo-European family of languages
concluding to all originated from one tongue, hence, one race,
that is the ‘Aryan race’. After Jones, another indologist who
made a significant mark on the way to rediscovery was Henry T
Colebrooke who viewed India as more of a tribal republics.
Moreover his addition of the Vedas opened a chapter in the
history of Aryans. Jones and Colebrooke had thought very high of
the Indians, they regarded India to slow which was later
maintained by Elephinstone, Wilson and others. The indologists
mostly depended on the Brahmins for their information, therefore
they emphasised on Hinduism. Though there are references to
other believes. Buddhism and Jainism were less familiar although
there is mention of Sramanas; for instance in Megasthenis’s
Indica , he provided a distinction between the Brachmanes and
Sarmanes in the category of Indian philosophy. They saw India
only as a Hindu and Sanskritic civilization, so they set aside the
numerous chronicles written largely in Persian by court poets and
chroniclers of the Turkish, Afghan and Mughal rulers. These were
regarded as alien to Indian civilization, even though their contents
concerned Indian society and politics and the people whom they
wrote about had settled in India to become part of Indian society.
European reading of Islamic texts were viewed as alien and
antagonistic to Hindu civilisation. European attitude towards
Islam as non-Hindu culture was mediated by the notion of
similarities to their Christendom. This type of notion is typified in
Mill’s book which became a hegemonic but historically invalid
periodization into Hindu civilization; Muslim civilization and; the
British period. Similarly, William Jones and Max Muller had
viewed Hindu and Muslim as different nation. The concept of
nation-states was variant in the 19th centuryEurope.Hindu and
Sanskritic elements were highlighted as the contribution of India
to world history and the presence of other religious and linguistic
cultures, such as Buddhism, Jainism or even Islam as it evolved in
India, were barely recognized in terms of constructing Indian
civilization.Mill’s book provided a new light in the oriental
studies. His view for India wassomewhat backward. Mill
commented Indians at low stage of evolution. According to Mill,
Indian society was backward, retrogressive and characterised by
despotism but above all it was stagnet. Max Muller reversing the
words of Mill, spoke of gentle, passive Indians who spent their
time on meditation.The concept of ‘Oriental Despotism’ developed
in the 19th century brought about a colonial understanding of
India on Indian History. The present of India was viewed as the
past of Europe in the general format of social evolution. By the
19th century, Europe had already undergo the process of
modernisation, henceforth, they considered themselves higher
than the Indian society. AS a matter of fact, with this perception
there developed a new thoughts such as utilitarian thoughts. The
utilitarian thoughts of Jeremy Bentham brought about a new light
in colonial imperial thinking of Indian society. There perception
about Indian to make them follow their steps through teaching
and training; but, ensure that they are lower to them and that they
follow the Colonizers. Moreover, their vision was to make
Indians to their use by training them in English. As a whole, their
perception about Indians were backward that of their European
model of lifestyle; Mill and Thomas Babington Macaulay (1800–
59) denied that the Indians possessed any civilization in any
meaningful sense, and this was said to be evident in their marked
lack of historical consciousness. To cite Macaulay, ‘All the
historical information which has been collected from all the books
written in the Sanskrit language is less valuable than what may be
found in the most paltry abridgements used in preparatory schools
in England’.