THE PAST AS PRESENT
{44}
THE PAST AS PRESENT Forging Contemporary Identities Through History
ROMILA THAPAR
P R E FAC E
On 15 August 1947 I was in the last year of school in Pune. The entire school, the parents of the students and other well-wishers were invited for the celebration. The principal had told me that I would have to lower the Union Jack, raise the Indian flag in its place, plant a sapling, and make a short speech. I had spent sleepless nights wondering what I should say in my short speech and was terrified of addressing a public audience—a discomfort that I have always had. Planting the sapling was fun. Raising the Indian flag was an intensely emotional moment, given that so much political drama had been played out in Pune during the 1940s and some of us had made it a point to rush from school in the late afternoon to attend Gandhiji’s prayer meetings during periods when he was out of prison. But the toughest was the speech and the more I consulted my friends, teachers and parents, the more confused I became. Finally I decided that I would only address the question of what I was anticipating as a young Indian after independence. And that was something fairly simple, reflecting the thoughts of most Indians at that time. It revolved around two intertwined themes: one was that now that we were getting the opportunity of constructing a free society what form should such a society take, and tied into this was the need to know what our identity as a people was. Now that I think back on it I feel that these two themes have hovered in my mind throughout my life. Researching one’s own culture and society as I have done implies enquiring into social and cultural identities in the past and such enquiry is inevitably an interface with the present. I have over the years of my research been struck by the frequency with which the present makes use of the past either in a detrimental manner where it becomes a part of various political ploys, or alternatively in a positive manner to claim an enviable legitimacy and inheritance. The essays in this book encapsulate my thoughts on certain themes that I have written and spoken about for half a century. The themes pertain largely to the way history has been used in contemporary times, xi
xii
ro m i l a t h a pa r
particularly in what has become the debate on Indian identity. The interpretations of Indian history have changed, especially in the late twentieth century. The earlier focus on political and dynastic history has been vastly broadened to include many facets of social, economic and cultural history. These have led to new questions particularly pertinent to the issue of how a nation formulates its identity. My endorsement of this identity has been an insistence that it be the identity of the Indian citizen, over and above religious community and caste. This has of course met with opposition from those for whom the identity politics of religion and caste are primary. I have explained in some of the essays why the communal interpretation of Indian history where Hindu and Muslim communities are seen only as religious groups—invariably antagonistic—has been replaced by a more analytical way of investigating the relations between communities, going back to pre-Islamic times. Those who argue that the earliest inhabitants of the subcontinent were Aryans and that Vedic culture is the foundational culture of India, have problems in accepting the new analyses of early history where the role of other cultures has been registered. The controversies have extended to much more than this. They have included the modern readings of the epics, and the need to accept variant forms of the Ramayana that have existed since at least two thousand years. Another theme that has become significant in recent decades is that of the status of women in the past and how that relates to attitudes towards women in the present. The existing mindset that claims to draw from the past needs to be understood in more than historical terms. But if at least the history could be explained without being blurred, it would help change the mindset. It seems to me that what makes the essays especially pertinent is that the ideas contained in many of them were first formulated at a time when not only the discipline of history but the broader structure of education was changing from a colonial foundation to a system associated with a liberal and secular democratic society and intellectual explorations of various kinds. Changes in educational structures seem often to have fallen by the wayside, but the change in the discipline of history has been effective, and has illumined many new areas of the past. Such change is of course never completed since this exploration is a continuous process of ideas evolving from the past and conditioned by
t h e pa s t a s p r e s e n t
xiii
the present. This in part accounts for the hesitancy of some to recognize the changes in virtually every discipline. My ideas today are not substantially different from what they were a few decades ago although the emphasis on nuances may differ. I must confess that in re-reading the essays in order to revise them, I was saddened that the issues remain contentious and our movement towards a solution seems distant. But perhaps this may be just my impatience. The noticeable decline in liberal values is disturbing, especially as fewer and fewer persons appear concerned about this decline. My generation grew up on the cusp of independence, with confidence in the new society that was to come soon after. But what has come is not the society we had anticipated. The substratum message of these essays is that despite the events of the last quarter century, hopefully, one day that society can emerge. My intention in publishing these essays however, is that the reading public will be acquainted with some of the ideas and controversies that we work with as historians, and to familiarize a larger readership with the kinds of questions and investigations that we are pursuing. However, the essays are all based on research that I have done on various themes. For those interested in following up on this research, I have included a bibliography of my writing. Some of the essays in the book examine how a particular issue was dealt with over a period of time—this is the reason the reader will sometimes find more than one essay on a subject. I have arranged and introduced the essays thematically. These essays were addressed to the general reader and in their revised versions continue to do so. The essays are largely, but not altogether, in response to debates that have surfaced in the public arena on questions concerning historical interpretation. As a historian I have felt it necessary that there be responses from those of us who are concerned about the future of our discipline, and about a rational understanding of our past, even if allowing a hint of romanticism. I have confined myself largely to the early period since that is the history that I am most familiar with and is also the one perhaps most often debated in the public arena. However, my implied comments on some ways of viewing early history would also apply to the history of later times, although the evidence dealt with would differ. Much of the debate stems from the question of national identity and most people assume that history provides the answer. What is not
x iv
ro m i l a t h a pa r
realized is that if the history is mangled then the identity or identities can be hopelessly off course. If the past is to be called upon to legitimize the present, as it so frequently is, then the veracity of such a past has to be continuously vetted. In speaking of the relationship of past and present we seldom stop to think of how much of our present hangs on what we assume to be the actual past. Romila Thapar New Delhi January 2014
I HISTORY AND THE PUBLIC
h is to ry a nd t he p ub l i c : a n i nt ro d uc t i o n
Most of the essays in this book are about how the present draws on the past not necessarily always to better understand the past but to use the past to legitimize the present. E.H. Carr’s often repeated statement that history is a dialogue between the past and the present is true, but perhaps with a caveat. A historian of medieval Europe, for instance, maintains that the past does not literally speak to the present, but when it is being used for legitimation we insist that it is saying what we want to hear, even if we are imputing thoughts to the past that may have been alien to it. In a sense this may partially explain some historical controversies, where not every historian agrees with what the past is said to be stating. But this is also where a systematic historical method of enquiry can assist in evaluating the validity of diverse views. The understanding of history has changed radically in our times from what it was a century ago. In the past it was enough to discover the evidence, look for further clues, and like Hercule Poirot or Sherlock Holmes, find the solution. So, in the early days of my teaching I used to suggest to my students that they read Agatha Christie. But soon this became redundant with the shift towards evidence having to be not just read but analyzed, the author’s intentions having to be clarified, the reasons for addressing particular audiences having to be explained, and only subsequent to all this could there be a possible historical statement. I have attempted to provide a few examples of this. The nature of this change can perhaps be encapsulated in the formula of questioning existing knowledge through a critical inquiry into evidence and its reading. This obviously extends to all forms of knowledge and not just history. Not that this necessarily makes the explanation of past events foolproof; but it widens the range of what we take to be the causes of events and consequently of our exploration of these. More questions can be asked and more answers suggested provided they draw on reliable evidence, conform to a rational analysis and provide logical generalizations. This, up to a point, perhaps takes away from the romance of history. But 2
t h e pa s t a s p r e s e n t
3
it does help to differentiate between the historian and the author of historical novels. Both draw on the past but in entirely different ways. Our perception of the past has obviously to change as and when the evidence increases and the methodology becomes more precise. Since the existence of the past is not entirely tangible, the presence of artifacts and monuments from the past being few, the past is constructed by putting together a variety of evidence. All societies over the centuries have constructed their past, often in accordance with contemporary theories about the meaning of the past. The past therefore is represented in various ways: in the oral traditions of mythology, folktales, ballads— some of which were incorporated into literary forms as epics, narratives, drama and chronicles. This becomes the data of what we call ‘traditions’. But as Eric Hobsbawm and Terence Ranger have shown, ‘traditions’ can also be invented in later periods, although purporting to have emerged in early times. This is one reason why ascertaining the chronology of the evidence used is crucial. Dates are not just an obsession with historians (even if occasionally they become so); they do have a vital role in authenticating evidence. In contemporary times we not only reconstruct the past but we also use it to give legitimacy to the way in which we order our own society. Given that with the advance of knowledge, we have more ways of discovering new evidence and of asking fresh questions of the evidence, we can therefore construct a past that is more credible and precise. This becomes a past that is better assessed by those who are trained to do so, such as historians. The more technical the training required, especially where the evidence goes beyond texts to artifacts, the greater the gulf between the professional historian and the lay reader. Controversies, however, often involve historians with those who gather rumoured information and who are not trained to assess the evidence. A few decades ago the study of history was geared primarily to listing the activity of those in power, largely rulers of various kinds, and placing them in chronological order, the order being as accurate as the sources of study would allow. In the three decades of the 1960s, 70s and 80s, the interest in the past came to be re-oriented in a significant way. It was no longer limited to political and dynastic history. It introduced the interface of these aspects with others such as social and economic history and the flow of what was called culture/civilization that largely addressed
4
ro m i l a t h a pa r
religion, language, literature, the arts and philosophy. This change can be illustrated in various ways in the themes that younger historians started researching that were concerned with trying to construct a larger picture of society. The change was associated partly with history becoming a social science, partly with its being written from a Marxist perspective on the history of society, or on specific aspects of religion and on concepts of legitimation from a Weberian perspective, and partly with new directions suggested by different sources and new questions arising from dialogue with other disciplines. Some examples of the latter were the function of technology in changing society, a more realistic gender history than had been written before, and the investigation of environmental factors affecting history. Early History In the writing of early Indian history, both Archaeology and Historical Linguistics have provided new evidence and new ways of interpreting existing evidence. Archaeology received enhanced attention after independence because interest in it was fuelled by the need to ascertain whether there were sites of Harappan urbanization on the Indian side of the border, the major sites of Harappa and Mohenjo-daro being located in Pakistan after 1947. Archaeological investigation resulted in the spectacular discovery of Harappan cities in Gujarat, Rajasthan and Punjab.This gave much encouragement to exploring other archaeological cultures as well in order to see the flow from less complex societies to more complex ones, culminating occasionally in urban centres. And this interest in turn grew with research into regional history. Methods of Historical Linguistics provided less dramatic but equally significant evidence. There was the recognition that seemingly similar words had meanings that were not identical. The reference to ‘pur’ in the Rigveda was not to city but to something like a stockade. This makes it very different from the term ‘pura’ meaning a town that was used in later texts. Therefore, the argument that the Rigveda was familiar with urban living, on the basis of pur, was questioned—it was also necessary to keep in mind the fact that the process of urbanization was not just one settlement evolving into a town, but a substantial social change accompanied by different social and economic structures now supporting urban centres as compared to the previous ones.
t h e pa s t a s p r e s e n t
5
Historical linguistics when applied to crucial words in a text can provide historical clues to their meaning and to the language to which they belong. The occurrence of Dravidian linguistic elements in the text of the Vedic corpus, inevitably leads historians to asking different questions from those they asked before these elements were recognized. The origins of words are historically significant. For example, langala, a plough, in the Rigveda opens up a new set of questions, as it is not of Indo-Aryan origin. Where texts show evidence of the use of more than a single language, there the historian has to ask whether there might have been some bi-lingualism involving earlier settlers and later, newcomers. This might suggest interesting cultural possibilities of the interface between speakers of different languages. For instance, were there some forms of culture such as customary law or religious beliefs that were exchanged? What was inducted from one society into the other? The other use of linguistics to history has been in sorting out the different stylistic forms that occur in a text.These indicate the chronology of the segments that went into the making of a long text, allowing the separation of the earlier portions from the later. This technique has been used for instance by T.R. Trautmann in the analysis of the Arthashastra of Kautilya, suggesting a period of composition that stretched from the fourth century bc to the third century ad. Similarly, A.L. Basham has also suggested that the Bhagvad Gita may not have been composed at a single point in time. Evidence, no matter how reliable, and irrespective of whether it is an abstract fact from a text or a tangible object from an excavation, has to be interpreted. Interpretations can differ, and do differ, and such differences account for what goes into the making of different approaches to history. But this is precisely where it is necessary to go through the procedure of applying the method of analysis that we have come to associate with new forms of research. This involves assessing, through various means, the reliability of the evidence used as the basis of the argument, and the links between cause-and-effect that are drawn in a logical way from the evidence. In the study of ancient history for example, the historian would have to know how to follow reports of archaeological excavations that now have become quite technical. Archaeology draws increasingly on scientific disciplines for analyses, making it necessary to consult the specialist in the
6
ro m i l a t h a pa r
particular science. Few excavators would have the expertise to differentiate between the bones of an onager and a horse, the identification of which might tell us when the horse was introduced into India. A specialist working on faunal bones would have to be consulted. Such specialist consultation is even more necessary now that DNA analyses have been introduced into determining the identity of social groups from both the past and the present. Here the shoe is often on the other foot: the DNA specialists need to know more about the sociology and history of caste and ethnic groups and how they acquire an identity, before they trace them back to antiquity or pronounce on their continuity. Reading inscriptions requires some familiarity with paleography and the evolution of the script. Making sense of coins improves if one knows how to differentiate between the properties of metals, or alloys, and techniques of casting and even statistical methods, not to mention the basic information on economies that used money. In the same way when reading a text, knowing the language is necessary but not sufficient in itself, since a number of further questions have to be asked concerning the author, the audience for whom the text is intended, and above all, the agenda of the text since all texts have an agenda. Such an analysis cannot be based on guesswork. New sources and new methods of analyses can lead to historical readings different from previous ones. A comment frequently made is that since historical facts do not change, how can history change? This reflects a lack of awareness of the sources and methods currently being used in historical interpretation. The facts may not change, although sometimes they do as a result of fresh information or new ways of analyzing old information, but the interpretation of these facts can change. History is not just a directory of information; it also involves analyzing and interpreting this information. Having been through a rigorous training process and later having demanded it of my students, I am always surprised at the popular assumption that historical writing requires no training. The world and his wife can write history, and can take umbrage if criticized by historians for writing junk. It is ironic that the historian today can be confronted by non-historians insisting on their version of the past being correct and accusing the historian of prejudice! The non-specialist does not, in a similar manner, question the views of other social scientists or of
t h e pa s t a s p r e s e n t
7
natural scientists, because these disciplines do not go into the making of social and political identities to the extent that history does. A rationally argued cause-and-effect connection within the limits of the evidence is required, as it is in all investigation. This procedure will necessarily question the fantasy pasts being palmed off as history. And while it can be fun for historians to analyze such fantasies, the best thing that could be said about such texts is that they reveal more about the authors than about the past. This does not preclude the rare leaps of historical imagination that are not written as history but are knowledgeable and sensitive about the past. Early History as a Social Science History in the last fifty years has become a part of the social sciences. I tend to agree with those who prefer to combine the social sciences and the humanities and refer to them as ‘the human sciences’ in contradistinction to ‘the natural sciences’. With history moving towards the social sciences, there was a spurt in the dialogue between historians and economists, social anthropologists, geographers and even specialists in literature. This encouraged historians to look for new kinds of evidence, much of which had an impact on their interpretations of the past. I remember, for example, a long discussion that I had in the 1960s with a demographer on how to estimate the population of ancient cities, and why this had significance for the study of the nature of early urbanization. These were not the kinds of questions that we had been trained to ask in our student days. A new slew of questions are now being posed, changing the focus on the past. Explanations of how societies and economies functioned in the past are often based on what have been called ‘grand theories’. The last two centuries have seen attempts to formulate patterns of historical change that may have universal application. There is now a turn to retaining some broad contours but seeing change at localized levels and analyzing why there are variations. Grand theory may well persist but its effectiveness requires recognizing and understanding the diversities within it. The ill-informed assumptions that Marxism, for instance, advocates economic determinism or that Weber gives priority to religious forms, need correction. Explanations of how a society functions, by their very intention have to consider the interface between various facets. Although
8
ro m i l a t h a pa r
priority may be given to some, these are not deterministic features. The effective change came with asking new questions of the sources. For instance, inscriptions of the period from the seventh to the twelfth centuries ad had been deciphered in the nineteenth century and were read as sources for a hundred years. They were mainly studied for information on rulers and their chronology. Most of such inscriptions had to do with grants of land, so when questions pertaining to society and the economy of that time came to be asked from this inscriptional evidence, new dimensions of the history of those times opened up, relating to the agrarian economy, caste and religious sects.