Introduction

• Foreign scholars often complain about India’s lack of an indigenous tradition of historiography.
• India has a vast heritage of literature, much of which relates to past events.
• However, India has never had a historian comparable to those of ancient Greece and Rome, or later European scholars.
• These scholars contributed to the development of history as a discipline.
• One explanation for this absence is indifference to the western conception of history, where man is seen as the subject and agent, actively working to change the human condition.
• This indifference is cited as a distinguishing trait of Indian civilization.
• Some reasons offered for this deficiency include:
  • Indians having no sense of history.
  • Lack of interest in factual or objective history.
  • A static society in India, with little historical development to encourage scientific study.
• Indian religions are also blamed for acting as a tremendous force for social inertia.
  • They often adopt a reactionary attitude towards social change.
  • They inculcate a worldview that is not conducive to an interest in what westerners know as history.
• The chapter will discuss the validity of these assumptions and what has been achieved in Indian historiography during the pre-modern period.

Historical Sense in Ancient India

• Scholars, including historians, Indologists, and orientalists, are divided on the historical sense of ancient Indians, particularly the Hindus.
• Some argue that ancient Indians had no sense of history and chronology.
• Alberuni (AD 1030) remarked that “The Hindus do not pay much attention to the historical order of things” and are careless about the chronological succession of their kings.
• Alberuni’s source, the Puranic records, contains genealogies of kings in proper historical and chronological order, with a few exceptions.
• It is paradoxical that Alberuni calls his work “a simple historic record of facts,” while criticizing the sources he used as unhistorical.
• Alberuni attempted to fix the chronology of historical events using data from Hindu sources in his book.
• S.R. Sharma justifies Alberuni’s statement by noting the paucity of historical works in India, although materials for history are available.
• A.K. Majumdar disagrees, asserting that Hindus were capable of writing history and did bequeath reliable historical works.
• L.J. Trotter and W.H. Hutton claim that ancient Hindus produced no historians of note, which is criticized as absurd.
• Some scholars argue that Hindus did not write formal history and lacked the capacity for it.
• H. Beveridge argues that Indian literature has failed to produce a work that can be properly classified as history, with the exception of a work on Kashmir.
• Subjective elements in such remarks have led to misgivings, but objective judgment should prevail.
• A.S. Macdonell states that history is the weak spot in Indian literature, claiming it is non-existent, with no exact chronology in Sanskrit literature.
• Macdonell argues that early India wrote no history because it never made any, and that Brahmans, whose task it would have been to record great deeds, had little inclination to chronicle historical events.
• This perspective is considered a total rejection of truth.

Opinion against historical Sense in Ancient India

• The statement that ancient India was without history and historians is far from the truth.
• It is incorrect to claim that ancient Indians had a distaste for history or lacked interest in recording past events.
• J.W. McCrindle, a popular authority on ancient India, argued that Indians did not write history, producing a vast literature but without history.
• McCrindle suggested that the Brahmanas, being the learned men, were incapable of historical composition due to their modes of thought.
• He claimed that significant events were allowed to pass unrecorded, which led to them being forgotten in Sanskrit literature due to a lack of history and chronology.
• These views cannot be accepted as they contradict the truth.
• R.G. Bhandarkar observed that India had no real history and that the historical curiosity of the people was satisfied by legends.
• Bhandarkar and many others consider Kalhana’s Rajatarangini as the only historical work.
• The confusion regarding the historical value of Sanskrit literature has been worsened by recent writings on historiography.
• It is wrong to claim that only the ancient Greeks, Romans, Chinese, Persians, Egyptians, Babylonians, Assyrians, and Sumerians maintained historical records.
• Ancient Indians were not historians and did not have political history like these civilizations.
• It is often stated that Hindus have no history, no authentic chronology, and only use dates imported from Greek history.
• Each country had its own tradition of historical writing, and each tradition holds value.
• The value of the historiographical tradition in ancient India should be judged independently, without comparison to other countries.

Historical Sense in Ancient India and Classical World- A Comparison

• Many historians of ancient India argue that there is no work comparable to the histories of Herodotus, Thucydides, Polybios, Livy, or Tacitus.
• However, this does not mean that ancient Indians had no history.
• E.J. Rapson notes that while India had stirring events, these events were not systematically recorded.
• Major foreign invasions, such as those of Darius, Alexander the Great, and Seleucus, are not mentioned in Indian works.
• The struggles between native princes and the rise and fall of empires are preserved in epic poems, stories of sages, genealogies, and dynastic lists.
• These materials mark the beginning of history, but ancient India did not carry history beyond this rudimentary stage.
• Rapson observes that the literatures of Brahmanas, Buddhists, and Jains are deficient as records of political progressand cannot sketch the political history of India before the Mohammedan conquests.
• It is futile to compare the historical writings of ancient India with those of ancient Greece and Rome in terms of importance.
• James Tod argues that those expecting Indian history to be like Greek and Roman works overlook the peculiarities of Indian thought and culture.
• Tod praises the historical sense and historical works of ancient Indians, including Puranic records and other mixed historical works.
• While Greek and Roman historians produced political histories, Indian historians covered social, economic, political, religious, and cultural aspects.
• Both Indian and classical traditions of historiography have relative value.
• Max Muller emphasizes that history provides a comprehensive knowledge of the past, with large and small histories, each with its value.
• Historical writings are shaped by the contemporary events of each country and age.
• Historians are influenced by the subjects they write about, and sometimes, events produce historians rather than the other way around.
• History developed as a branch of literature in both ancient India and Greece.
• Greeks and Romans also treated history as an art rather than a critical science.
• Few classical historians were critical, and their works often mixed history with myths and legends.
• Herodotus, regarded as the father of history, was considered a great artist and storyteller.
• Like ancient historians in India, Greek and Roman historians focused on the artistic presentation of truth rather than creating scientific history.
• History in both India and Greece developed concurrently, with similar approaches and not one being superior to the other.
• E.J. Rapson claims that ancient Indian literature is limited in historical value compared to Greek and Latin classics, asserting that chronology is almost absent.
• Rapson acknowledges that Indian literature contains materials to trace social life, religion, and progress but lacks chronological details.
• Dynastic lists are present, but they do not offer fixed points for determining Indian chronology.
• There is a mix of truth and distortion in Rapson’s observations regarding the absence of historians in India and the lack of recorded events in Indian literature.
• J. Allan, Wolseley Haig, and H.H. Dodwell also argue that ancient Indian literature is of little value from a historical and chronological perspective.
• They claim the two great epics are of limited value for political history, and Puranas are mainly legendary and mythological.
• Despite this, Puranas contain genealogical matter and some historical information, and Bana’s Harshacharita is a historical biography.
• Puranic and Buddhist literature are not deficient in chronological data, and this data has been used to build up the chronology of ancient Indian history.

Opinions in favour of historical Sense in Ancient India

• Maurice Winternitz, a German scholar, affirms the historical sense of ancient Indians, stating that historical writing existed in India.
• Inscriptions from India, dated accurately, show that Indians had a sense of history.
• Ancient Indian writers often mixed fact and fiction, with more emphasis on the importance of facts rather than their chronological order.
• From the fifth century AD, inscriptions started providing dates for writers, indicating a growing sense of history.
• A.B. Keith rejects the claim that India lacked historians or historical sense, arguing that India, with its developed civilization, must have had some historical understanding.
• Despite the abundance of literature, Keith believes there was a lack of critical historians in ancient India.
• Keith acknowledges the historical value of Puranic genealogies, Pattavlis of the Jains, and Buddhist works.
• Biographical works like those of Vakapatiraja, Padmagupta, and Bilhana are of greater historical value, according to Keith.
• Kalhana’s chronicle of Kashmir kings is considered a serious contribution to historiography, with Kalhana referred to as “a true historian.”
• Keith notes that the absence of national feeling in ancient India hindered the recording of foreign invasions and internal political struggles.
• Foreign invasions were not recorded due to the lack of sources during those times, not due to a lack of national feeling.
• A.K. Warder, a prominent authority on Indian historiography, advocates the historical sense of ancient Indians and proves the continuity of historiographical tradition from the Vedic period to the twelfth century AD.
• U.N. Ghoshal, A.D. Pusalker, R.C. Majumdar, R.C. Dutt, Radha Kumud Mookerji, Radha Kamal Mukherjee, and Romila Thapar, noted scholars of ancient Indian history, confirm that the ancient Indians had a true sense of history and produced significant historical and quasi-historical writings.
• Ancient Indian epics, Puranas, historical biographies, chronicles, and other historical works contributed to the development of historiography in India.
• Hindus, Buddhists, and Jains all made important contributions to the evolution of historiography in ancient India.
• Radha Kumud Mookerji highlights that history is not just about political events but also involves social and cultural history, making it more interesting as a history of thought.

Ancient Indian Historical Sense- Assumptions

• Ancient Indians recorded history through genealogies, biographies, and chronicles of kings, as well as other materials of history.
• Chandragupta Maurya appointed state officials to collect details of important events, forming the source material for history.
• Arthasastra of Kautilya mentions the role of the Gopa (village official) to keep records of various aspects of village life, including agriculture, trade, social groups, and occupational groups, providing data for social and economic history.
• Kautilya also references the existence of archives in the Maurya court.
• Hiuen-Tsang (629-645 AD) observed that each province in India had state officials dedicated to maintaining written records, with custodians of archives and state papers called “Ni-lo-pi-Cha” or “Ni-lo-Pi-t’u.”
• Sutas were the first to record genealogies of royal families, preserving them in some of the Puranas.
• The practice of maintaining written records continued for centuries, with royal courts preserving important events in archives.
• Historical chronicles and Vamsavalis were compiled using archival records, seen in regions like Kashmir, Gujarat, and Nepal.
• India’s history was recorded through literature, which reflects the thought and civilization of each age.
• Some ancient annals and written records were allegedly destroyed or altered by Muslim invasions in India.
• Inscriptions are a vital historical and chronological source, offering valuable information with reliable dates.
• Genealogies of kings and records of their deeds, gifts, and grants are preserved in inscriptions on stones, copper plates, rock, pillars, walls, and coins.
• Inscriptions such as the Allhabad pillar inscription (Harisena on Samudragupta’s campaigns) and the Aihole inscription (Ravikirti on Pulakesin II’s achievements) highlight the historical sense of ancient Indians.
• Ancient inscriptions are mostly dated, specifying the reign periods and length of reigns of kings, providing chronological details.
• Important inscriptions include those of Asoka, Kharavela, Rudradamana, Samudragupta, Harsa, Palas, Chalukyas, Rashtrakutas, Cholas, and Hoysalas.
• Fleet, an authority on Gupta inscriptions, acknowledged the historical capability of ancient Indians.
• Coins also provide dates of rulers and events, making them crucial for writing ancient Indian history.
• Inscriptions and coins are two of the most important non-literary sources for understanding ancient India’s history.
• Ancient India was not devoid of history or historians, and the idea that Indians lacked a historical sense is incorrect.
• Genealogical lists, biographical works, chronicles, Puranas, Pali chronicles, Jain works, Kalhana’s work, and inscriptions all testify to the historical and chronological sense of ancient Indians.

Conclusion

• Ancient Indians were more acquainted with the art than the science of historiography.
• It is unrealistic to expect scientific, serious, or genuine histories from ancient authors.
• Modern historians often neglect the context and forms of ancient historical works in favor of truth, accuracy, and objectivity.
• Ancient works should be judged by the standards of their time, not by modern historiographical standards.
• Each age has its own tradition of historiography, which influences the historian’s treatment of historical subjects.
• The ancient concept of history and chronology was different from modern ones, with facts being prioritized over chronology.
• The tradition of historical writing in ancient India began with Vedavyasa and continued until the twelfth century AD.
• The Rgveda contains the earliest evidence of historical sense, and Vyasa’s composition of Bharata Itihasa and Purana Samhita marked the beginning of Indian historiography.
• The two main early traditions of historiography were the epic and Puranic traditions, with the Puranic tradition holding greater value.
• Puranakara were the first to record dynastic genealogies and chronology, providing valuable systematic records up to the beginning of the Gupta rule.
• The Gupta and post-Gupta periods are also documented, though with less systematic chronological data.
• Buddhist and Jain traditions produced semi-historical works before the seventh century AD.
• Buddhist and Jain scholars made more serious contributions to history, with the Jains being more focused on historical accuracy.
• The period from the seventh to the twelfth century AD was significant for the production of biographies and chronicles in India.
• Court poets wrote biographies highlighting the achievements of their patrons, contributing to the historiographical tradition.
• Biographies and chronicles were written in regions like Sindh, Kashmir, Gujarat, Odisha, and Nepal during this period.
• The Jains had a more serious approach to history, with a number of historical treatises to their credit.
• Muslim historians also contributed to the chronicle tradition, such as the chronicle of Sindh.
• Ancient Indians did produce political history, detailing the deeds of kings, struggles between native princes, invasions, wars, and the rise and fall of kingdoms.
• South India had a rich tradition of historical writing, with works on kingdoms, dynasties, and biographies produced both before and after the seventh century AD.
• It is a misconception that Kalhana’s Rajatarangini is the only significant historical work in Sanskrit literature.
• Kalhana is considered the best ancient historian of India, and his work is regarded as the best historical work produced in ancient India.
• There were various schools of historical writing in ancient India, with the Gujarat, Rajasthan, and Kashmir schools making significant contributions.
• Historians from these three schools had a lasting impact on the evolution of historiography in India.
• Ancient India was not devoid of historical knowledge or works, which shed light on various aspects of history and culture.
• The view that there was a lack of regular historical works by Hindus is not correct.
• The Puranic, Buddhist, Jain traditions, and Kalhana’s chronology are of great historical value.
• Ancient Indians did possess a historical sense, though only a few were critical historians.
• Ancient India had both historians and historiography, but no one left a complete history of the entire period for posterity.
• The histories available today belong to different ages and perspectives, affirming that “history is what the historian makes.”

Idea of Bharatvarsha

• India is called Bharatakhanda in traditional and legendary Hindu literature.
• It is also referred to as Bharatvarsha, meaning the land of Bharat, a famous king in the Pauranic traditions.
• Bharatvarsha was considered part of a larger unit called Jambhudvipa, one of the seven concentric legendary islands.
• The present name India is derived from Sindhu (the Indus River), a major river in the North-West.
• Early Aryan settlers were amazed by the large size of the Indus River and called it Sindhu, meaning a vast body of water.
• Ancient India was known as Bharatvarsha.
• Scholars differ on the derivation of the name Bharatvarsha:
  • According to Vedavyasa, the name came from Bharat, the son of Emperor Dhyanta.
  • The Aitareya Brahmana states that Bharata was a universal monarch who built a vast empire and performed Aswamedha Yagna. His name became the basis for Bharatvarsha.
  • The Maitareya Purana suggests the land ruled by Manu, the progenitor of humans, was named Bharatvarsha due to his reputation for justice and love for the public.
  • Jainas and Bhagavadas believe the name came from Bharat, the eldest son of Rishabha Deva, who was known for his virtue and asceticism.
• Not all explanations can be taken literally, as small towns or provinces were often named after prominent individuals.
• Larger countries are typically named after the race or citizens.
• The name Bharatvarsha is likely derived from the Bharata race of the Vedic Aryans, who were politically powerful at the time.
• According to the Vayu Purana, the nation north of the sea and south of the Himalayas is called Bharat, as it was inhabited by the descendants of Bharat.

Scriptural View on the concept of Bharatvarsa

• Bharatavarsha literally means the continent dedicated to light and wisdom (bha and rata in Sanskrit).
• Vedic Rishis devoted themselves to the quest for eternal truth and ultimate reality, kevala jnana, and satchidananda.
• The Bharatas were an ancient and venerable tribe mentioned in the Rg Veda, especially in Mandala 3 of Bharata Rishi Vishwamitra.
• Mandala 7 of the Veda mentions the Bharatas were victorious in the Battle of the Ten Kings.
• There were three personifications of ‘Bharata’ in Hindu tradition, each in one of the three yugas (time cycles):
  • First Bharata: Born in Satyuga as the son of Rshabdeva, the first among ancient sages. Known as the first Tirthankara and synonymous with Siva, the foremost yogi.
  • Jinasena’s Adipurana describes three great events: Rshabdeva attained enlightenment, Bharata became a cakravartin (emperor), and his son ensured the continuation of the Iksvaku dynasty.
  • Bharata’s role: Subjugated rival kings, unified the country, and ruled without violence through his punya (merit) and virtues like compassion, divine-wisdom, and penance.
  • Second Bharata: Born in Tretayuga as the son of King Dasaratha of Ayodhya, and younger brother of Sri Rama. Symbolized love, devotion, and brotherhood.
  • The Ramayana tells the story of Bharata’s renunciation of the throne, refusing to take it after his brother Sri Rama was exiled.
  • Bharata’s commitment: He vowed to govern Ayodhya as regent and placed Rama’s sandals on the throne as a symbol of his kingship.
  • Third Bharata: Born in Dwaparyuga as the son of Shakuntala and King Dushyant. Their story is in the Mahabharata and immortalized by Kalidasa in Abhigyan Shakuntalam.
  • Shakuntala: Daughter of Rishi Vishvamitra and the apsara Menaka. Raised in the hermitage of Rishi Kanva.
  • Dushyant: Youngest son of King Puru, who founded the Paurava dynasty. He secretly married Shakuntala.
  • Bharata’s early life: After his birth, Bharata grew bold, playing with lions, and became a great king. He had nine sons but adopted a capable child as heir.
  • Bharata is regarded as the greatest king of India and lent his name to the country, exemplifying service, valor, and charity.
• The three Bharatas personify the unity of the Satayuga, Tretayuga, and Dwaparayuga, symbolizing political and cultural unity of the land.
• Bharatvarsha was historically considered the land of the descendants of Bharata.
• The Vishnu Purana states: “The country north of the ocean and south of the snowy mountains is called Bharat, where the descendants of Bharata live.”
• Bharatvarsha was part of a larger unit called Jambu-dvipa, one of the seven concentric islands or continents as per Puranas.
• In epics, Jambu-divipa is sometimes called Bharatvarsha, representing the country of Bharata or his descendants, particularly Bharata, son of Dushyant and Shakuntala.
• The Matsya Purana mentions the concept of Greater Bharat, consisting of nine divisions, which have since submerged into the sea:
  • These include regions like Indradweepe, Kaseru, Tamraparni, Gabhistiman, Nagdweepa, Saumya, Gandharva, Varuna, and Bharat, all surrounded by the sea.

Idea of Bharatavarsa-Assumptions

• Raja Rammohun Roy, a polyglot and Indian reformer, published the work titled “Exposition of the Practical Operation of the Judicial and Revenue System of India”, discussing India’s boundaries and history.
• India, historically referred to as “Bharat Varsha”, was named after the monarch Bharat.
• The country is bound:
  • South by the sea
  • East partly by the sea, partly by mountains separating it from regions like Assam, Cassay, and Arracan
  • North by the Himalayan mountain range separating it from Tibet
  • West partly by mountains dividing it from Persia and partly by the sea above the mouth of the Indus
• India lies between the 8th and 35th degrees north latitude and 67th and 93rd degrees east longitude.
• Vaarshaa signifies a large tract of land separated from other countries by natural boundaries like oceans, mountains, or deserts.
• Bharat, a humane and powerful prince, is believed to have descended from the Indu-Bangs or lunar race.
• Raja Rammohun Roy excluded the territories east of the Brahmaputra River (starting from Assam) from the territories of India in his report.
• He noted the following about the exclusion of eastern and western territories:
  • Eastern territories like Assam, Ava, Siam, and regions up to 102 degrees east longitude were often considered part of India Beyond Ganges, but some authors saw them as part of China due to resemblance of inhabitants’ features to the Chinese.
  • Western territories like Caubul and Candhar, beyond the broken mountain ranges at Longitude 70 degrees Eastand Latitude 34 degrees North, were debated to belong either to India or Persia. Hindu antiquities were found here, supporting the idea of inclusion in India.
• The northern boundary mountains, as well as those forming the eastern and western limits of India, are referred to by ancient writers as Himalaya, viewed as a great demarcation line.
• Himalaya is described as the immortal prince of mountains, marking the standard of measure or the line of demarcation for the country.