Social Scientist

Clearing the Mists of Antiquity

The Past and Prejudice by Romila Thapar
Review by: E. M. S. Namboodiripad
Social Scientist, Vol. 4, No. 2 (Sep., 1975), pp. 65-69
Published by: Social Scientist
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3516307 .
Accessed: 03/10/2012 01:35
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Social Scientist is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Social Scientist.

http://www.jstor.org

BOOKREVIEWS
Review Articles

Clearingthe Mists of Antiquity

ROMILATHAPAR,

THE PAST AND PREJUDICE,

National

Book Trust,

New Delhi 1975, pp 70, Rs 5.

AMONG TIIE various sciences, or branches of knowledge, history is the
most partisan. Every class, community, nation and even well-off families
have used their own respeetive 'histories' to bolster themselves and to
degrade their rivals.
In our own case, Indian history, as has been correctly pointed out
of this book, "resulted in a number of interpretations of the
the
author
by
The
three
Sardar Patel Memorial Lectures delivered over the Allpast."
India Radio in 1972 and brought together in this little volume are devoted
to the negation of many of these "interpretations".Appropriately enough it
has been given the title The Past and Prejudice, since many of these 'interpretations' are prejudices which have been handed over through generations of historians to the common people.
These however have their origin in the self-interest of particular
classes, communities or groups of people. Some of them, for instance, are
"related to the needs of imperialism, for economic imperialism had its
counterpart in cultural domination." Historical writing coming from this
source "aimed at explaining the past in a manner which facilitated
imperial rule."'
Against this arose another school of historical interpretation which
is connected with "the ideology of Indian nationalism". As the author
goes on to point out,
the national movement itself had picked up facets from the reconstruction of the Indian past. Those historians who were sensitive to the
stirrings of nationalism also respond to these facets. Because of the
cultural domination

implicit in imperialism,

nationalism of the anti-

colonial variety had to incorporate a programme of cultural nationalism as well...The more persistent of the stereotypes have dominated

66

SOCIAL SCIENTIST

not only historical interpretation but have become the foundation of

political modern ideologies.2
These two schools of historical interpretation
naturally clashed
each
on
other
a
of
)ints.
There
are
number
however
certain matters
p
against
on which substantial sections of the national school found themselves in
agreement with the imperialist school. Romila Thapar addresses herself
to some of these common points and effectively combats them on the basis
of her scientific analysis of objective facts.
One of these relates to the role played by the Aryan immigration
into India which was for long considered to be the starting-point of
Indian history. This theory was of course exploded with the discovery of
the remains of the Indus Vallev Civilization and the enormous material
that has been accumulated after those discoveries at Harappa and
It is now possible for historians to reconstruct a more
Mohenjo-Daro.
rational, a more scientific interpretation of Indian history in which the
Aryan immigration plays a less significant role than it did earlier.

AryanCivilizationTheory
Basing herself on this rich material that has been accumulated,
the author disposes of "the notion of the Aryan race" as "alien to the
Indian tradition".8 After discussing the various aspects of this notion, she
comes to the conclusion:
The historians therefore cannot but doubt the theory that a large
number of Aryans conquered northern India, enslaving the existing
population and thereby established their language and culture, both
entirely alien to the indigenous tradition. It has to be conceded that,
if there was a conquest, it was limited to parts of the extreme North.
It is more likely that groups of Aryan-speaking people migrated into
northern India, and settled and mixed up with the indigenous population. The culture that resulted evolved from this interaction. The
widespread adoption of the Indo-Aryan language in nothern India
was a major expression of this new culture. Such a phenomenon takes
on the dimensions of a social force and has to be seen historically in
that light.4
The question naturally arises why, and on the basis of what objective
factors, such a widespread adoption of the Indo-Aryan language became
possible. The author's answer is:
At the beginning of the first millenium B C two innovations of great
consequence appear on the Indian scene. One was the extensive use
of the horse, an animal comparatively new to the sub continent, and
the other was a familiarity with iron technology... The spoked-wheel
chariot drawn by the horse was a technological advance in transportation over the ox-drawn cart. The use of iron improved on a variety
of skills which had previously depended on the less durable and
weaker metals of copper and bronze. Frequent references to the solar
calendar in literature point to an improvement in astronomy and

BOOK REVIEW

67

mathematics at that time. Astronomy and meteorology helped to

make sowing, harvesting and irrigation more efficient. Improved
geometry not only led to the building of more elaborate sacrificial
enclosures, but also a more competent division of the fields, not to
mention its use in the constructions of buildings. The new technology
appears to have coincided with the Aryan speakers. The association
of Sanskrit with the introduction of advanced technology may have
led to its wide acceptance. It is significant that in those areas of the
sub-continent, where an iron technology was already in existencethrough the megalithic culture of the peninsula-the situation was
different. Here, Dravidians remained the predominant language
group.5

The author has thus successfully solved the question why north
India by and large came under one system of socio-cultural organization,
why the majority of tribes living in that part of the country should have
been brought under the influence of Sanskrit culture and why another
part of the country, south India, should by and large have maintained
its own distinct cultural patterns, even though influenced to a large extent
by the Sanskrit culture from the north. Neither is the former due to the
ethnicsuperiority of the Aryanrace,nor should the latter be attributed to
the ethniccharacter of the Dravidianrace. The phenomenon is to be traced,
in both cases, to the character of the technological changes being brought
about in the two areas, which found reflection in the two groups of languages.

Marx on India
Tracing the theory of Aryan civilization to the European scholars
and administrators, the author goes into other theories like "Indian society
having always been an unchanging society", "Oriental despotism", or
"India having had in historical times no private property in land". She
quotes the well-known articles of Karl Marx on British rule in India, to
bring home the point that Marx too was influenced by those facts of
Indian history which had been noted by imperialist scholars and administrators in order to project their own interpetation of history. This is
understandable, since
Marx's sources, the writings of Elphinstone, Campbell, Richard Jones
and contemporary administrative records, all subscribed to this view.
The facts being so limited, few thought of questioning the assumptions. In a later period Marx himself questioned the notion of a continuing and total absence of private property in land. Doubts about
the validity of his earlier theory (concerning the absence of private
property in land) had increased in the light of investigations made
by Marxist historians themselves into the Indian past. On the other
hand, the model put forward by Marx is more often used by scholars
who by no stretch can be regarded as Marxists.6
It is necessary in this context to point out that Marx's writings on

68

SOCIAL SCIENTIST

India had a limited objective and scope. He began his well-known articles
in 1853 when the British parliament was debating the question of revising
the charter given to the East India Company. British politicians themselves being divided on the issue, the Bill under discussion in parliament
became a matter of public ccontroversy. Marx was naturally interested
in the questions raised on India, as he was interested in every other
question connected with the development of British capitalism. He was
therefore trying to relate the development of British colonialism in India
against the background of capitalist development in the home country.
These debates in the British parliament and Marx's articles on them
coincided in time with the gathering storm of people's discontent which
was to break out in the form of a two-year war of independence in May
1857. In all these writings (which have now been brought out in Moscow
in a collection under the title First War of Indian Independence,Marx
analyzed the forces that were released by the activities and final victory
of the British East India Company.
The founder of the theory of Historical Materialism that he was,
Marx could not confine himself to the analysis of the questions raised in
the British parliament in the form in which they were raised. He had to
go behind them and unravel the socio-economic forces which, by a combination of circumstances, led to the break-up of a stagnant precapitalist
Indian society-caste-ridden, very much under the influence of religious
obscurantism and with large elements of tribal society still continuingthat too by a foreign power, rather than the indigenous forces of social
revolution. He asked himself the question whether the break-up of this
stagnant society was from a historical point of view progressive.

Propertiesof the Transformation

The revolutionary theoretician and the organizer of revolutionary
political action in Marx discerned in this destruction of the old its two
aspects:firstly. that the destruction of the stagnant Indian society was from
a historical point of view a progressive development, the British overlords
being the "unconscious tools of history" in bringing about a veritable
revolution in Indian society; secondly,this revolution being carried out by
a foreign power which, furthermore, is interested in making only such
changes in Indian society as serve their (the Britishers') narrow self
interest, the destruction of the stagnant society would not be accompanied
by the construction of a new and vigorous society.
In bringing about this dual character of the "revolution" in Indian
society, Marx of course had his limitations arising out of the fact that he
was relying on such sources as are interested in particular "stereotypes"
created by imperialist scholars and administrators. One need not therefore look upon the remarks made by Marx on "oriental despotism",
"unchanging character of Indian society", "absence of private property in
land and so on as the last word in historical materialism in relation to
India. The science of history as it pertains to India should go forward

BOOK REVIEW

69

from what Marx had written over twelve decades ago on the basis of the
material then available to him. This is a task in which dedicated Marxists
and honest historians who do not subscribe to the theory of Marxism
can and should cooperate.
The analysis made by Romila Thapar of what she calls the "prejudices" in relation to the "past" of India gives us hope that such
collaboration will be possible. For, the conclusions arrived at by her
confirm, rather than negate, the basic postulates of Marx's writings on
India-firstly that Indian society as it existed at the time of Britain's victorious advance was so stagnant, requiring such fundamental
transfomawould shed a tear over its destruction;
tions, that no revolutionary
secondly that no positive consequences would arise out of this destruction
so long as foreign domination continued over India. These, after all, constitute the revolutionary essence of Marx's analysis of India in the middle
of the nineteenth century.
E M S NAMBOODIRIPAD
The Past and Prejudice,p 4.
Ibid., pp 4-5.
8 Ibid., 6.
p
4 Ibid., pp 26-27.
5 Ibid., pp 27-28.
6
Ibid., p 48.
2