Early Indian Notions of History

Do you agree with the view that early Indians had no notions of history?
-Dias Mario Antony
The definition of history has been one that has emerged out of the European
tradition. It has taken years to realize that different societies write history in
different ways. The manner in which the past was perceived was different in
each society. When Europeans first looked at Indian literature for writings on
history, they were in fact looking at literature that was similar to that in
Europe, which focused on chronology and externalized facts. This search for
history in India began in the 18 th century. The European scholars however
could not locate historical literature within the Sanskrit tradition. Thus the
Sanskrit articulation of Hindu culture therefore came to be defined as
ahistorical. Even though this was the case some people like William Jones, a
leading Indologist of the late 18 th century suspected that some texts even if
they included the myths and legends of the Hindus, probably contained the
core of a history and this was later proved to be true, which we now refer to
as embedded history.
Among the Sanskrit texts that the European scholars examined, one of the
exceptions was the Rajatarangini of Kalhana, a 12 th century history of
Kashmir. In Europe an awareness of evidence, interest in causation, and a
premium on chronology together with sequential narrative were the
Renaissance sense of the part, whereas in the case of Indian history, there
were stirring events but they found no systematic record in the books of
history. Chronology in Indian sources was said to have been disguised by the
fantasy of the Brahmans which made it impossible to unravel. The Buddhist
texts were also ignored by the European scholars, partly because there were
no Buddhist monks to introduce the texts and partly because they were
considered as an inferior branch of Hinduism, which could not form the
mainstream of information. The history of India was largely an arena for
trying out the ideas derived from European concerns.
One of the most important debates of the Indian history was the coming of the
Aryans in India. The Rig Veda gave the idea of hostilities against the dasas,
believed to be the indigenous people. The entirely different Puranic version of
the story was ignored on the grounds that the Puranas were of less
importance, and was compiled at a much later date.
James Mill, a European scholar, who wrote about India, was critical of Indian
culture. In his book, “History of British India”, Mill divided India into three
periods-Hindu, Muslim and British. He argued that Hindu Civilization was
‘irrational, backward and unchanging’ and that Muslim civilization must be
marginally better. British administration was seen as the only solution.
It has been widely argued that a historical tradition in early India did exist, but
it was weak tradition, and given the intellectual interests of the Indian society,
it is a matter of curiosity that historical writing received little attention. This
has been attributed various factors like the decentralized nature of political
institutions. The role of the priestly elite in fabricating genealogies for those
rulers of low caste whose status could not be openly disclosed, and to the
exclusive control by the Brahmans over the transmission of the tradition.
There was also the cyclical concept of time which, was seen as obstructing
history. The cyclical time was seen as infinity of reckoning cycles and there
existed no demarcating the end in this concept. The cycle was made of four
yugas-Krta Yuga, Treta Yuga, Dvapara Yuga and the Kali Yuga. Since all these
events repeated themselves, it was believed that Indians didn’t find the need
to record History. However there are many evidences in contrary to all these
explanations.
Some of these can be found in the itihasa-purana tradition. Itihasa-purana, a

Sanskrit term, and means ‘thus it was’ and now translated as ‘history’. Purana
on the other hand means ‘that which belongs to the past’, and includes stories,
events and genealogies. Though they were not histories in the modern sense,
theses texts were attempts to “capture the past in particular forms and use
them to legitimize claims of the present”. The narratives were mostly set in
linear time.
History in early India can be found as mentioned earlier in two forms-

Embedded and Externalized. Records in which historical consciousness is
embedded include myths, genealogies, dana-stuti hymns of the Rig Veda, the
Akhyanas and the epics. These forms usually tend to be scattered.
Myths are the deepest layers of the embedded form of history writing. Myths
act as the ‘self-images’ of a given culture and express its ‘social assumptions’.
The Mesopotamian flood myth is one such example, which shares a
resemblance with the story of Manu and the fish. Later Vedic literature
includes stories composed when sacrificial rituals like the rajasuya and
asvamedha were performed. These stories were known as the Akhyans and
these narrate the lives and activities of the chiefly families. These events
described in these texts were limited to the activities of the Kshatriyas, but the
audience included the entire tribe!
The Rig Veda contains the dana-stuti hymns, written in praise of gift-giving
and generous heroes, who were lauded as model patrons. These were mostly
written chiefs, Kings and deities, who bestowed generous gifts on bards and
priests.
The puranas were composed around the 4 th-5th century CE. The word Purana
means old and this text discusses the creation of the world, periods of the
various Manus, the genealogies of the rulers and an account of the ruling
dynasties. The vamsanucarita was also the genealogy of all known dynasties
and lineages up to the mid first millennium AD.
The last of the embedded forms are the epics, Mahabharata and the
Ramayana. These texts are oral in origin therefore their stories change and
grow with time. The Ramayana and the Mahabharata are the narratives of the
last few generations of the Chandravamsa and the Suryavamsa lineages. The
Ramayana, as the name suggests tells the story of Ram of Kosala, his
banishment into the forest, the abduction of his wife, Sita and her rescue. The
Mahabharata on the other hand is the story of a family feud and tells how a
great war was fought between the cousins. The Ramayana is known as a
‘kavya’ or poem whereas Mahabharata is called an ‘itihas’.
On the other hand externalized History tries to bring History into the open
and there is now more deliberate use of the past. Examples of these are the
caritas (historical biographies), historical chronicles (Vamsavalis).
Biographies recorded important events of the patrons past and the history of
the past history of the dynasty and the author’s family was also included.
Biographies often justified the patron’s right to rule or succession.
Caritas are written about the center of power. The Harshacarita by

Banabhatta is one of the best examples, which talks about the king
Harshavardhana. These texts in fact reveal courtly relationship norms.
Vamsavalis on the other hand are the histories of the ruling family or a
dynasty and the territory under contest. These are written by the poets of the
court and tell not only about the patron but also about the author. Hence they
link the author to the itihasa-purana tradition.
The parallel traditions of history that reflected historical consciousness are

the Buddhist monastic chronicles. These texts maintained records of the social
back ground and patrons of different sects and histories of the major events
that took place in the Sangha. Claims to legitimacy led to substantial input of
historically phased arguments in these texts. The events are arranged in
chronological order and genealogical generations indicate time periods. The
Dipavamsa and Mahavamsa are the two chronicles from Sri Lanka, Which
narrate the events of the past.
From the above arguments it is evident that historical consciousness did in

fact exist in Early India .The aim of Europeans was administration and
legislation and they easily claimed that India was deficient in History. The fact
however that was there was genuine effort to bring out the history that was
hidden in the Indian literature from the past.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Thapar, Romila, Early India: From the Origins to AD 1300
New Delhi:Penguin Group 2002
Singh, Upinder, A History of Ancient and Early Medieval India:From the stone
age to the 12th century, New Delhi, Pearson Longman Publication, 2009.
Thapar, Romila, Society and Historical Consciousness:the itihasa-purana

tradition’, in Romila Thapar, Cultural Pasts: Essays in Early Indian History,
New Delhi:Oxford University Press, 2000

Early Indian Notions of History

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Early Indian Notions of History

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Early Indian Notions of History

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Do you agree with the view that early Indians had no notions of history?

-Dias Mario Antony

Some of these can be found in the itihasa-purana tradition. Itihasa-purana, a

History in early India can be found as mentioned earlier in two forms-

Caritas are written about the center of power. The Harshacarita by

The parallel traditions of history that reflected historical consciousness are

From the above arguments it is evident that historical consciousness did in

New Delhi:Penguin Group 2002

Thapar, Romila, Society and Historical Consciousness:the itihasa-purana

You might also like