the-south-asian.com                                     March / April  2006

 

 Home

 

March/April Contents 

 Real Issues
 Malnourishment in
 South Asia

 

 South Asian issues
 Getting to know the
 past better

 

 

 News from elsewhere
 New animal species
 found in Indonesia

 Veggie chemical
 repairs DNA damage

 

 Heritage
 Bhera - the town that
 time forgot
- Part II
 

 World Bank in
 South Asia
 Grant to Afghanistan

 
Land management in
 Bhutan


 
Urban services in
 Karnataka

 

 Conservation
 Tollinton Market
 saved

 

 

 Lifestyle
 South Asian
 Billionaires

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

 

 

   about us              back-issues           contact us         search             data bank

 

  craft shop

print gallery

Page  3  of  7

Getting to know the past better


By Romila Thapar

(cntd)


Historian Romila Thapar

 

Apart from new sources, let me give you an example of the kinds of changes in interpretation that I am talking about. Prior to this period it was frequently said that major changes in northern India were the result of invasions. The Indo-Greeks were coming in as were the Shakas, the Kushans, the Huns, the Turks, and so on.

Invasion, it was held, lead to conquest and the imposition of the conqueror's culture. It also meant that some people became rulers and some were subordinated by these rulers. But now we ask another set of questions, a wider set of questions, in addition to what was asked earlier, namely, who accepted the invasion and who resisted it and why was there this difference? What form did the resistance take and what form did the collaboration take? Were there negotiations required? If there were, who negotiated with whom? Invasion is not just a sudden one-time, overnight event. It is a gradual process and adjustments between those who are invading and those who are invaded are complicated adjustments. Does the invasion have the same impact on all levels of society? We all know about how ruling classes change very rapidly during the course of an invasion. But what happens further down in society? What happens for instance, to groups of traders? How do they accept an invasion? What happens to artisans and labourers? What happens to peasants? Were their lands devastated as a result? All these become important factors linked to the event. What I am trying to suggest in a nutshell is that in asking such questions history began to be subjected to what we today call "critical inquiry".

This has been a crucial development. It is what differentiates pre-1947 history from post-1947 history. Not that the older kind of history has ceased to exist or become unimportant, but the new kind of history has opened up more stimulating ways of examining the past. Consequently, the '60s and the '70s were a period when there was intense discussion and debate, and the vigour and liveliness of the discipline of history became evident.

There were a number of new areas that came to be investigated. Among these has been the evolution and structure of the state in early times. The focus shifted from just looking at the state as a static entity, to examining the process by which a state is formed. There are periods in society when there are no states, when the organization is based on clans, and kinship is significant in determining access to power and resources. Gradually, there is a shift towards what we call state formation - when kingdoms emerge, when power and authority is concentrated in one family and the appurtenances and paraphernalia of the state begin to get referred to: the king, his ministers, his capital city, his treasury, the army, laws of punishment and of control,
alliances and diplomatic connections, and so on.

These were all the constituents as it were, of establishing a state; and it is clear how there is a transition from the absence of references to these compared to when references are made in the texts, and when states came to be established. This then also leads to asking the question of
whether ideologies were in conflict, and the one that is often discussed relates to social ethics and war.

In certain schools of Brahmanical thinking, warfare was justified. It was argued that the king had to protect his subjects as also the aristocracy so they had to go to war. But there were other schools of Buddhist and Jain thinking that maintained that war was not always necessary and that persuasion was a better alternative. This was interestingly reflected in the inscriptions of the king whose name many are familiar with - the Mauryan emperor Ashoka, who made a point of
saying that war should be forsaken and people should be persuaded to adopt a peaceful life. It raises the issue of how conflicts were resolved when there were conflicting interests.

 

next page

 

Disclaimer

Copyright 2000 - 2006 [the-south-asian.com]. Intellectual Property. All rights reserved.

Home