EARLY INDIA By Romila Thapar Penguin Price: £8.75 Pages: 556

Romila Thapar's Early India is a revised version of her History of India, first published in 1966. Using political narrative as a frame, Thapar skilfully weaves in details of other aspects such as society, economy, religion, art and architecture. However, there are several problems in her interpretation of early India, not all of which will be immediately apparent to the general reader.

Although the book is about ancient India "from the beginnings", the author is impatient with prehistory. The mesolithic and neolithic phases are crammed together and the significance of many exciting discoveries in recent years -such as the early dates for prehistoric tools in the Shivaliks and the discovery of hominid remains in Madhya Pradesh-is not highlighted.

PAST GLORY: Varuna, lord of the ocean, from Ancient India (OBS)

Thapar cautions against the temptation to focus on dominant cultures but her own analysis tilts in that very direction. Her discussion of the chalcolithic (copper and stone-using) cultures leaps straight into the Harappan civilisation. The fact that Harappan civilisation is part of a longer, complex story that involves many earlier, less glamorous cultures is not brought out.

One of the most problematic aspects of Thapar's interpretation of ancient India is the manner in which she uses Vedic literature as a master text for understanding the history of India between 1200 and 600 b.c. Thapar concedes we are dealing with complex issues and that not all loose ends can be tied. But her narrative glosses over the enormous difficulties in dating the Vedas and in extracting history out of them. These difficulties are masked by a false certainty, perhaps to counter the opposite but equally dogmatic rightist interpretations. And although Thapar repeatedly asserts the importance of archaeological evidence, she does not integrate it into her narrative. This is not surprising as the archaeological picture does not match the one drawn from texts on certain important points.

In a book like this, balance and even treatment are crucial. This becomes difficult for periods that are the focus of major controversies. Historians have spent almost half a century tirelessly debating whether the early medieval period (roughly 500-1200 a.d.) was feudal or not. Thapar seems to oscillate between the different points of view. In places, she appears to take the cautious stand that these are unresolved issues and she would rather not take sides. Whether this is a concession to the reader (presenting both sides of the case) or whether it reflects the author's own lack of certainty on these important issues is unclear.

Thapar's discussion of the historiography of ancient India focuses on a critique of the Orientalist and nationalist misreadings of India's ancient past. She highlights the important contribution made by Marxist historians and the debates generated by them. Then she presents us with a pleasant picture of a gentle ironing out of earlier distortions and imbalances, a broadening of horizons brought about by the fruitful dialogue between history and the other social sciences. According to her, the only discordant note is the danger posed by communal histories that are rearing their heads in a society increasingly polarised along communal lines.

The communalisation of history is indeed a matter of grave concern for historians. Yet, there are other important academic problems that have beset the writing and teaching of ancient Indian history. While major advances have been made, particularly on social and economic issues and in bringing the marginalised communities into the picture, there is a downside as well. There are too many instances of unilinear, grand narratives and of unnuanced and untextured histories. There is a tendency to reduce history to a tedious economic determinism and an inability to come to grips with religion. There are the simplistic correlations of literary with archaeological evidence and the refusal to discard theories even when the evidence clearly contradicts them. There is the imperious prohibition of lines of inquiry by branding them as politically incorrect regardless of whether or not they really form part of the communal agenda. A convincing critique of the writing of ancient Indian history should confront these issues as well.

Previous | Next