Introduction

• Historiography is a complex problem, involving both history and intellectual history.
• When discussing a historian’s approach, their sincerity and honesty are generally not in question.
• A historian writes not to serve specific interests but through intellectual conviction or under the influence of ideas and ideologies.
• A historian may transcend their class, caste, race, community, or nation in their work.
• The relationship of a historian to a particular approach to Indian history (e.g., colonial, nationalist, or communal) is determined by the correspondence between their intellectual product and the practice of these groups, not by analyzing their motives.
• Historians are often influenced by contemporary politics and ideologies.
• Intellectual history studies how certain ideas and approaches are popularized, debated, supported, opposed, and how they move between different milieus.

Colonial versus nationalist historiography

• Nationalist approach to Indian history aimed at fostering national unity and overcoming differences (religion, caste, linguistic, class).
• Initially, 19th-century Indian historians followed colonial historiography, focusing on political history and ruling dynasties.
• Colonial historians created an all-India history, mirroring the creation of an all-India empire.
• Colonial rulers practiced divide and rule, and colonial historians emphasized divisions in Indian society based on region and religion.
• Nationalist historians responded to colonialism by creating counter-narratives, aiming to build national self-respect.
• Colonial stereotypes (e.g., India’s incapacity for self-government) were challenged by nationalist historians, who sought to refute colonial views.
• Colonial writers argued that Indians were unfit for self-government, democracy, modern development, and defense, implying that British rule was necessary.
• Orientalist views praised India’s spiritualism but simultaneously suggested Indians lacked political, economic, and administrative abilities.
• The theory of Oriental Despotism claimed India was naturally ruled by autocrats, justifying British autocratic rule as benevolent.
• Colonial historians asserted that Indians lacked national unity and a democratic tradition, unlike Europeans.
• Indians were said to lack creativity and innovation, with positive institutions and customs coming from outside influences.
• Colonial notions portrayed Indian intellectuals’ demands for self-governance as unrealistic due to India’s historical character and lack of democratic tradition.