Chapter Info (Click Here)
Book No. – 49 (History)
Book Name – The Concept of Bharatvarsha (B.D. Chattopadhyaya)
What’s Inside the Chapter? (After Subscription)
1. The Historiography of India and Its Spatial Components
2. Regions and their Components in Geography and Anthropology
2.1. Janapadas and Nādus
3. Regions, Subregions and ‘Imitable Models’
4. Conclusion
Note: The first chapter of every book is free.
Access this chapter with any subscription below:
- Half Yearly Plan (All Subject)
- Annual Plan (All Subject)
- History (Single Subject)
- CUET PG + History
LANGUAGE
Space, History and Cultural Process: Some Ideas on the Ingredients of Subregional ‘Identity’
Chapter – 2
Table of Contents
The Historiography of India and Its Spatial Components
- The sceptical discourse on culture highlights that culture is often conceptualized as bounded, homogeneous, stable, and structured, while social reality is marked by variability, inconsistencies, conflict, change, and individual agency.
- In discussions about India, the idea of “unity in diversity” is commonly invoked, but it is important to assess how historical studies reflect this image and explore suggested departures.
- The concept of India as a unit of historical study is colonial in origin, with the Indian State viewed politically, focusing on the subcontinent as the space for that state.
- The colonial historiographical tradition dissects the history of the state into Hindu, Muslim, and British periods, with a religious division of history being a colonial invention.
- The relationship between space and history in colonial historiography broke from early Indian traditions in two ways: (i) by focusing on the subcontinent as the space of study, distinct from Bhāratavarṣa, and (ii) by shifting from the traditional way of writing history based on sovereign rulers and uninterrupted succession of families.
- In the colonial model, regions became units of study but were seen as fragments of a larger, stable space, and regional history replicated the general history of India.
- Nationalist historiography did not remake the colonial break, instead recognizing the fundamental unity of India and considering the regional components in terms of their adherence to or deviation from the pan-Indian pattern.
- The idea of diversities in India often mismatched with ground-level surveys, such as ethnographic, linguistic, and other regional studies.
- In regional studies, regions were defined by political heroes, major kingdoms, icons, chronologies, and sacred centres, but these regions were often treated as bounded constructs, similar to the construct of India itself.
- For historians, the problem with these constructs is that they do not show how India could have evolved as a recognizable space, nor do they acknowledge the non-homogeneous cultural space of India.
- The challenge is to develop a model for historical trajectories that locates cultural dynamics, considers diversities, and incorporates variations in language, dialects, and religious practices into a historical narrative.
- This does not mean shifting from a grand mega-narrative to fragmented views, but rather grasping the dynamics of historical and cultural processes.
- The interrelationship of spaces, historical/cultural processes, and the formation of cultural spaces and networks must be considered when studying India’s evolution.
- The method should focus on the process and chronology of the formation of cultural zones and networks of interaction, examining whether larger spatial formations emerged over time.
- Cultural dynamics should be seen as constantly interacting, with spaces, historical/cultural processes, and cultural networks not isolated but in a state of varying interaction.