Imperialist Historiography in India

The interpretation of Indian history from the 18th century onwards relates closely to the world
view of European, and particularly British historians, who provided the initial historiographical
base. Hence, with the advent of the Europeans in India, Indian historiography underwent a
drastic change not merely in approach, treatment, and technique but also in volume of historical
literature. The resulting theories frequently reflected, whether consciously or nor, the political
and ideological interests of Europe – the history of India becoming one of the means of
propagating those interests. Investigation into the Indian past began with the work of the
Orientalists or Indologists – mainly European scholars who had made India, and particularly
Indian languages, their area of study. However, as administrators they also required a specialized
knowledge of traditional Indian law, politics, society, and religion, which inevitably led them to
the literature of Sanskrit and Persian. Thus, scholarly and administrative interests coalesced.
One of the most influential of such scholars at the time was Max Muller, who projected Indian
village communities as unchanging. He also wrote that the Indians are a nation of philosophers
and Indian intellectuals are lacking in political or material speculation and that the Indians never
knew the feeling of nationality. Overall, the Orientalists thought of India as a country of
philosophers given to metaphysical speculation with little concern for their mundane existence.
Indian society was thus, depicted as idyllic, and as being devoid of any tension or social discord.
Distinct trend in Indian historiography began to set in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries,
when colonial writers came under the patronages of the imperial government with pre-conceived
ideas about the Indian past. Some were sympathetic in their interpretations while majority of
others became critical of what they called the values of ancient Indian society. This was in part
due to the mounting problems of governing a vast colony, with an unfamiliar, if not alien culture.
The nature of the relationship between Britain and India was also undergoing change, for trading
stations were being substituted by colonial markets.
The major intellectual influence, however, was that of English Utilitarian philosophy. James
Mill, its first ideologue in the context of Indian history, completed his lengthy History of British
India in the early decades of the 19th century. Mill asserted that Indian society had remained
substantially unchanged since its inception. He recommended a radical alteration of Indian socio-
economic set-up, to be achieved by imposing the correct legal and administrative system in
India. Both the analysis and the solution suggested by Mill suited the aims and needs of imperial
requirements. His History therefore, became a textbook on India at the Haileybury College,
where the British officers of the Indian Civil Service were trained. Mill’s emphasis was basically
on the law and government, as he was committed to the view that Indian society was dominated
by caste, privileges and prejudices, and that it could never be improved except through
enlightened despotism. He condemned the Hindu and Muslim contribution to history or form of
government just to glorify the British rule. For him the manners and morals of the people could
be improved only through law and government, and that it was the primary responsibility of the
State to bestow its utmost thought to the improvement of the conditions of the people. He thus
divided the history of India into three periods, the Hindus, the Muslims and the British, thus
sowing the seed of communal historiography.
Mill’s view was shared by several British administrator-historians, including Elphinstone who,
under the spell of romanticism, spoke glowingly of the unchanging village communities of
ancient India. These views on pre-modern India received further strengthening from the
intellectual writings of eminent philosophers of history of the time such as Hegel who dismissed
Indian civilization as being static, despotic and outside the mainstream of relevant world history.
The most important characteristic of Indian society that would come out of these writings was
the theory of ‘Oriental Despotism’ which had also appeared quite implicit in Mill’s History. By
the second half of the 19th century this theory had gained much currency, particularly among the
administrator-historians of British India. This study of the Indian society and economy also
inspired Marx in his reconstruction of the Asiatic Mode of Production, characterized by the
predominance of self-sufficient village economy, the absence of privately owned land, and the
complete subjugation of village communities to the state.
However, the best-known exponent of the imperialist view of Indian history was Vincent A.
Smith. Trained in more advanced techniques of historical research than were available to his
predecessors, Smith devoted himself to the study of the general history of ancient India. In his
book Early History of India published in 1904 he made a significant observation that in ancient
times land was owned by the king. This theory suited the British colonial interests and was
upheld by several other British historians, who apparently wanted to make out a case for
introducing agrarian changes by the British government in the late nineteenth and early twentieth
centuries. Though less hostile to India than Mill, Smith, nevertheless believed India to be a land
of dictatorship which did not experience political unity until the establishment of the British rule.
The implication was that the Indian were not fit to rule themselves. In keeping with the main
trends of contemporary British historiography Smith gave much attention to great men in history
like Alexander, Ashoka, Chandragupta II, etc., laying more emphasis on the role of foreigners in
ancient India.
On the other hand, there were evangelicals likes Shore and Grant who attempted to justify the
British rule in India as an event that was divinely conceived and pre-ordained for redeeming a
condemned humanity; and they tried to change Indian society through conversion and education.
Besides, there were scholars who viewed British rule as the interaction of Western and Eastern
forces and took keen interest in the study of Indian institutions and society; while still others
adopted Ranke’s technique of writing history through a very careful and critical study of sources
and presented their information in as objective a manner as possible.
Nevertheless, it remains true that the British wrote on early Indian history with a view to provide
historical justification of their colonial government and rule in India. However simplistic it may
be, we can safely conclude that the essence of imperialist historiography in India developed as
part of an ideological effort to appropriate history as a means of establishing cultural hegemony
and legitimizing British rule over India.