The Penguin History of Early India

by Romila Thapar

  Discussion on various aspects of the evolution of a state has included changes that led to this, just prior to 500 BC in north India. Transitions to state systems, together with urban centres, have been analysed with reference to the kingdoms of the Ganges Plain of the mid-first millennium BC, with an emphasis on locating the agencies of change: the identification of territory; rituals enhancing the notion of conquest and power; the use of iron technology; the production of an agricultural surplus; the beginnings of administrative control; and new ideologies confronting those already established. With the emergence of empire in the Mauryan period, a distinction has been suggested between empire and kingdom, a distinction moving away from the arbitrary use of the label ‘empire’ and seeking to explain the distinctive structure of an empire. This also has some relevance to the definition of kingdoms.

  Other theories explaining the state, particularly of the period subsequent to the eighth century AD, do not subscribe to the Marxist model but their critique of the model has been the starting-point of their own formulations. One view is that the states of the post-Gupta period differed from the previous ones, but that this change did not constitute feudalism. Territories emerged under new names and ruling lineages were associated with territorial names, rather than with clan names. Pre-state polities were transformed into states, and the creating of a centre of power involved the colonization of an area by settling subordinate branch lineages of the main dynasty in new areas. Rather than a decentralized feudal system, this is seen as spreading monarchy into pre-state societies and introducing what has been called an ‘integrative polity’. The theory has been discussed mainly with reference to Rajasthan, but how widespread it may have been has yet to be ascertained. And of course every polity is integrative in some way. The process could be pertinent to areas where new states were being formed but may be less applicable to areas with old, established states. The extent to which the new process differs from the old would also have to be investigated.

  Yet another model is that of the segmentary state. As originally formulated, it referred to societies in Africa following a segmentary form of social organization and without a clear state system. Segmentary societies are generally associated with systems where lineages determine the identities of descent groups. A segmentary state is therefore something of a contradiction in terms. The Alur in East Africa was said to be an emerging state system still rooted in segmentary forms. This model was applied to kingdoms in India, and particularly to the southern kingdoms. It assumes the separation of political sovereignty from ritual authority, arguing that the former is confined to the central or core area of the state whereas the latter holds for the peripheries. Unity is sought through the control of the centre at the apex, but more broadly through ritual conformity. The theory does not explain the pattern of political economies and has found little support, although in this case, too, the initial arguments in the debate led to some interesting explorations of south Indian history.

  The arguments and evidence used in these theories, and more particularly the critiques that they evoked, have moved away from seeing a uniform pattern applicable to every state. This has led to clarifying some aspects of the history of this period. For example, the impressive statistical research by Japanese and south Indian scholars, using computer-based analyses of inscriptions, has refined methods and generalizations pertaining to this history. The emerging picture of agrarian and commercial structures, with their relationship to governmental authority and the administrative networks that it fostered, is central to the discussion. Attention has also been directed to other processes, such as the creation of new castes and new religious beliefs and practices. These historical interests will be discussed in greater detail in the relevant chapters (11 and 13). The intention here is merely to provide a pointer to the directions they have taken.

  History as a Social and Human Science

  The writing of Marxist histories began at the same time as other developments in Indian historiography, evident from the discussion above. In India, the 1950s and 1960s saw the earlier germination of the social sciences being transmuted into established disciplines. This was in part linked to the post-independence period when realistic assessments of Indian society were being called for. Related subjects such as growth economics, demography, social anthropology and sociology, socio-linguistics, archaeology and history developed independently, with the growing interest in their subject matter, across disciplines in interdisciplinary research. Questions asked in one discipline began to interest the practitioners of another.

  History was pivotal, since there was always a curiosity in comparing the past with the present. Historians began to ask a different set of questions from those that had been asked previously and expanded the range of the theories of explanation. History relating to society, economy, culture and religion was explored, and the interconnections between them attracted interest. Historical research continued to require technical expertise in the handling of a range of source materials from artefacts to texts, but in addition also required some understanding of theoretical procedures of analysis. This differed from the approach of those for whom history was just a narrative about the past with a focus on providing information. Historical imagination shifted from the romance of reconstructing the past to a more creative exploration, asking a wide spectrum of questions and searching for answers.

  The Marxist intervention, quite apart from introducing new perspectives into historical studies, also encouraged a range of new themes considered legitimate to historical analyses. The influential writings on history by the French Annales School, which became available in English and began to be widely read a few decades ago, coincided with these explorations. These were historians who helped move history further towards studies of society, economy, population, environment and the ideas and attitudes of people to the world surrounding them. Inevitably, this involved using the methodology of disciplines such as social and economic anthropology, the sociology of religion, economics, ecological studies and intellectual history to ask new questions of existing data or to formulate new ways of analysing evidence. Interconnections were made, linking many facets that had earlier been treated in isolation or ignored.

  The interests that characterize the kind of history of those who contributed to these changes grew in part from the notion of the social sciences, or the human sciences as some would prefer to call them, as a legitimate method to explore the human past. This required a wider recognition of what constitutes historical data. It included not only the representation of actions, but also the way in which they were represented through words, objects or the intervening landscape with virtually everything that reflected the presence of the human. The focus was less on reconstructing reality and more on making the past intelligible. This required transcending the single event to view actions as not just individual articulations, but part of a wider context of human and social activity. Hence the emphasis on society, economy, religious articulations, art, literature and systems of knowledge. The necessary multiplicity of causes in such studies added to the dimension of historical explanation. Thus the social dimension of culture introduces questions such as who created the form, what was its function, who was the audience and how was it disseminated. Such a perspective not only enlarges historical space, but also prevents time being restricted to a linear narrative. The coexistence of different concepts of time becomes possible: Fernand Braudel writes of the historical moment of the event, the conjuncture of its broader social and economic context, and the long duration of the landscape and geology within which the event is enacted.

  Such studies are also providing a comparative perspective on Indian history, not along the old lines of declaring one culture to be the norm and judging others by its standards, but rather in terms of comparative analyses of forms and their functions across more than one culture. This approach has made historical studies of other parts of the world relevant to the intellectual equipment of the historian of early India. Som
e notable examples are: those of Moses Finley and Arnaldo Momigliano on the Greco-Roman world; Marc Bloch on medieval Europe; Joseph Needham on the history of scientific thought and practice in China; Nathan Wachtel’s study of the Peruvian perception of the Spanish conquest; and Jan Vansina’s recent work on the oral tradition. The debates initiated by their work among a wide range of historians from various societies and cultures provide comparative ways of approaching the understanding of Indian history as well, although obviously the particularities of Indian history will remain.

  The purpose of indicating the changing outlook of historical writing on India is not to dismiss the work of the early historians as being without value or to denigrate the importance of their scholarship. The inadequacies of their interpretations were often the inadequacies of their times, for historians are frequently far more representative of their age than they are aware. Despite such shortcomings, these studies laid the foundations of the history of India, providing a chronological and historical framework around which fresh interpretations could be constructed and which would place the ideas and institutions of Indian civilization in what was believed to be a significant perspective. Changes in the requirements of a historical approach now place less emphasis on chronological and dynastic reconstruction and more on understanding the layered nature of past societies.

  Social history is now taking cognizance of the studies of diverse forms of kinship and of gender relations in the multiple societies of the Indian past. These have been encouraged by anthropological studies, and also by historians working on gender. Earlier studies on the status of women were largely collections of information on the life of women, with a general approval of their status, as given in the Dharmashastras and other normative texts. This was part of the assumption of a Golden Age. It was also an encouragement to women to participate in the national movement, and the underlying argument was that even in the early past they were respected partners. Only later did their condition worsen. The new work is far more searching, attempting to explain the variations in the status of women in terms of different periods, regions and castes, and relates these to historical change. Social aspects that determined status, such as rights to property, marriage regulations and the use of women as labour, inevitably point to discrepancies in the earlier uniformly positive representation. There is a growing understanding of the implications of patriarchy, not only in determining gender relations, but also as a condition of society and in the manner of its assertion through social norms, religious beliefs or the work carried out by women. Women were not a distinct and separate category but an integral part of the social process. Hence the status of women becomes a commentary on society.

  Lower castes, marginalized groups and untouchables now enter historical narratives, sometimes as significant players, as for example in religious movements governed by social concerns. Those who laboured were not thought of as playing a pan in historical change, perhaps because those who did not labour wrote the sources that were quoted. It is sometimes possible, however, to infer the life of those who laboured from passing references in the texts. But the recognition of labour as an essential precondition to activities that are admired from the past has encouraged historians to look for such references in order to complete the picture of society.

  The historian of India was once regarded primarily as an Orientalist, or an Indologist, in the days when the studies of the languages and cultures of Asia were fragrant with exotica. This concept of Oriental studies has been mutating in the last century, both in India and elsewhere. In the contemporary world, the history of early societies is being approached from many perspectives, rather than being limited to the periods said to have created ‘classical cultures’. Political histories and dynastic studies remain an important aspect of historical interpretation, but these are also viewed in the light of other features that make a society and a culture. Changes in the political pattern are inextricably entwined with changes in the economic structure and in social relationships. If a religious movement finds a large following, then its attraction must have some relevance to the kind of people who support it. A new language and a new literature can only emerge if they fulfil a need for the society in which they are rooted. It is not enough for the historian to present the ideas of those who attempted to create the contours of the history of India. It is essential to attempt to know how these ideas arose and the extent of their acceptability within Indian society.

  Reconsidering Periodization

  A reconsideration of periodization becomes necessary, both because of the discussions on the nature of historical change and because of the introduction of new categories of sources. Archaeological evidence, for instance, defines a society from viewpoints different from the literary. These perspectives of the past have inevitably led to questioning the current forms of the periodization of Indian history. The terms Ancient, Medieval and Modern were taken from European history and applied to the existing tripartite division of Indian history. European history made a distinction between Antiquity/Ancient referring to the Greco-Roman civilization, and Medieval, which was essentially the period of Christian Europe. Both Ancient and Medieval had specific connotations in European history, which were not relevant to Indian history.

  ‘Ancient’ in Indian history remains an imprecise term, conveying little of the nature of the period, and ‘Medieval’ merely means the middle. In addition, the Ancient period covers a large enough span to include major changes within it. Accommodating variant patterns of historical change in the subcontinent to a uniform pattern also presents problems. In recent years this tripartite division has been modified to suit Indian history. The first period is described as Early Historical and terminates in about the eighth century AD. Subsequent to this is the Early Medieval – from the eighth century to the thirteenth century. The Medieval begins with Turkish rule or the Sultanates and ends with the decline of the Mughals. The fourth and last period is the Modern, marking the establishment of British rule in the eighteenth century.

  Although an improvement on the tripartite division, this tends to remain vague. The start of the Early Historical period is generally associated with the emergence of urban centres and states in the Ganges Plain in about 500 BC, marking a major change from that which preceded it. But this does not accommodate the previous lengthy period of pre-state and pre-urban society, subsequent to the decline of the Indus civilization and different from what emerged in the mid-first millennium BC. Contemporary written documents are available only from the third century BC, still leaving the earlier period without an appropriate label. A break around the eighth century AD is certainly called for, given the socio-economic changes and new developments in religions registered in the subcontinent, but whether the label Early Medieval conveys an impression of these changes is another matter. Periodization, if it is not merely to be a chronological division, should give some indication of social mutations and project a sequence involving what came before and what follows. Advances in historical knowledge could therefore alter the periodization. The ambiguity of the term ‘Medieval’ is now being debated for European history and it might be better to consider a more definitive term.

  A possible alternative periodization, although using more descriptive terms, could be as given here. This is far from definitive, has no easy labels for quick reference, but directs attention to substantial points of historical change. The divisions as listed below would not be of equal length. For purposes of grouping them into larger periods the focus would be on a central theme, towards which historical activities may be directed or from which they may lead. The attempt here is to suggest some ideas towards a more realistic view of change and to indicate what the characteristics of this maybe.

  The following is a suggested periodization:

  1 Hunter-gatherers, pastoralists and early farmers

  2 First urbanization: the Indus Plain and north-west India

  3 Megalithic settlements of the peninsula

  (The focal point
of these three periods was the Indus urbanization with cultures that led up to it and others that diverged after its decline. Archaeological data provides the evidence for this period.)

  4 Chiefships and kingships 1200-600 BC

  5 Second urbanization and state formation in the Ganges Plain c. 600-400 BC

  (The focal point here is the formation of states and urbanization in the Ganges Plain. Period 4 discusses the factors that led up to this. Evidence comes from archaeological data and oral traditions recorded later. The difference in the nature of this urbanization from the earlier calls for attention.)

  6 The Mauryan state, c. 400-c. 200 BC?

  (The earliest attempt at an imperial system. The possibility of interrogating a range of sources increases.)

  7 The rise of the mercantile community and cross-cultural contacts, c. 200 BC-AD 300 (This period saw a range of states and a variety of economic and religious networks in which the role of the mercantile community and cross-cultural contacts had greater significance than before, and contributed to transcontinental cultures.)

  8 The creation of Sanskritic cultures, c. AD 300-700 (Characteristics of this period were elements of cultural integration through the evolving of a court culture, recognizable in many parts of the subcontinent, that also reflected the potentialities of creating new states.)