From Indus to Independence: A Trek Through Indian History (Vol I Prehistory to the Fall of the Mauryas)

By Dr. Sanu Kainikara

This is the first volume in a series of books that covers Indian history from the earliest times to August 1947, when India achieved independence from foreign rule. This volume covers the prehistoric antecedents before the Indus Valley Civilisation and gives a vivid account of the developments that took place in the Indian sub-continent till the demise of the glorious Maurya dynasty. In doing so, the book describes the evolution of languages and religion, examines cultural and other factors that have influenced the evolution of Indian civilisation and also vibrantly portrays the historical events that took place during this period of over 5000 years. The author also provides his own succinct comments on the events that took place in antiquity as have been reported in, and corroborated by, various sources. This book is a worthy addition to the analysis of Indian history.

• Language: English
• Publisher: VIJ Books (India) Pty Ltd
• Release date: Feb 1, 2016
• ISBN: 9789385563140

Dr. Sanu Kainikara

Dr Sanu Kainikara is a practising military strategist, currently residing in Canberra, Australia. He is an ex-fighter pilot of the Indian Air Force who retired voluntarily in 1992. He holds a Master of Science in Defence and Strategic Studies from the University of Madras, and a PhD in International Politics from the University of Adelaide, Australia. Currently he is a Visiting Fellow at the University of New South Wales. Dr Kainikara has been widely published and is the author of numerous articles and papers on national security, military strategy and air power. He has also presented at various international conferences across the world. Sanu has an abiding passion for Indian history which he continues to nurture through research and providing lectures to students. This is the first volume of a series which will eventually cover the full spread of Indian history up to the nation’s independence from the British Raj.

Book preview

PROLOGUE

THE THEORY OF HISTORY

History, defined in the dictionary as ‘the branch of knowledge dealing with past events; the record of past events, especially in connection with the human race; and a continuous systematic written narrative, in order of time, of past events as relating to a particular people, country, period, person etc.,’. In effect, it is the aggregate of the past. Three important points come out of the different definitions given above—one, it deals with the past; two, this past is normally intimately related to the activities of the human race; and three, it is a chronological narrative of what a defined group of humans did, why, and how. The fundamental point is that history is based on events of the past and how these events are seen and understood within the ambit of contemporary knowledge.

Events that have occurred by themselves do not constitute history, although the first step in the process of recording history is to verify the accuracy and veracity of information regarding past events like dates, places and sequence of activities. This is done not only by the study of documents but is also supported by other disciplines like archaeology, epigraphy and numismatics. An event that happened in the past that has been accurately identified becomes a fact. However, it is the interpretation of that fact, confirming that the event in question influenced the course of events for a people or nation, and the understanding of this influence and its impact that transforms that particular event or fact into a ‘historical fact’. Once this has been achieved, understanding history becomes relatively easy. In essence, history is not mere narrative or documentation, or even the authentication of documents, but a reconstruction of the past that leads to the provision of the hypotheses and theories for why an event happened the way it did in combination with an extrapolation of the event and its influence on the further progression of the nation or people.

‘The facts of history do not exist for any historian till he creates them. ’

- Carl Becker, Atlantic Monthly, October 1910, p. 528.

[as quoted in E. H. Carr, What is History, Penguin Classics, p. 21.]

Nevertheless there is another much broader aspect to be considered. To start with, there is a subtle difference between understanding history and the history of the past. Further, appreciating the past as opposed to understanding history has a different connotation. The history of the past could be surmised to be all occurrences that happened in the past, irrespective of its importance at the time of occurrence or even later. For example, the sickness and death of an ordinary foot soldier in Alexander’s army is an event in the past that would not have created any impact when it occurred more than two thousand years ago and cannot be considered an event of influence even now. It is just an event that happened in the past, even if it had been recorded at the time of its occurrence, as may have been the case in this instance. In contrast, the sickness and death of Alexander himself cannot be considered in the same vein. This event had implications at the time it happened and even today is studied as an event of great importance that significantly changed the geo-political situation of the world. It is the responsibility of historians to evaluate, determine and highlight the events that must be recorded as ‘historical fact’ and ignore those that must be discarded as mere every day events of no consequence. Understanding the past is a process of analysing past events, discarding events that do not have any influence or implication immediately or into the future, and then placing the selected event, its influence and consequences in perspective. This process makes understanding the past a much broader enterprise than merely understanding history. The study of history, therefore, must be considered one part, albeit a critical one, of understanding the past in a holistic manner. There is another nuance to this. One of the philosophies of history is that historical facts are analysed through the eyes of the present—the prevailing norms—to get a contemporary understanding of a particular event and its repercussions. This process may not always produce the desired level of clarity necessary to fully comprehend the event of the past and its influences. Therefore this process should be used only as part of a set of tools being employed to understand the past. The broad discipline of understanding the past is complex, even in its simplest form.

Recording history is a continual process of interpretation of available historical facts, interaction between the past and the present, and an incessant quest to answer the question of ‘so what?’. This can be an intense intellectual exercise with its own challenges to overcome. If this process is undertaken taking into account only selected historical facts, whether the selection is done at random or in a more considered manner, the results of the analysis and conclusions will invariably be distorted and are bound to be less than robust. Analysis of selected historical facts is a common flaw in a number of historical theses, which dilutes the veracity of what may otherwise have been authoritative works.

There are three fundamental requirements that must be met before any progress can be made in recording history in a credible manner. First, the historical fact being recorded must have sufficiently credible authenticity, confirmed through rigorous examination of available evidence. Further, the evidence that are examined must be interpreted taking into account all their previous analysis, even if such analyses prove to be contrary to the conclusion being drawn in the current interpretation. Second, the analysis being conducted must be as critical as possible of the veracity of the evidence, as well as the process of analysis being employed. Along with this the logic of the reasoning adopted to arrive at conclusions must be clearly discernible and not faulty. Third, the analyst must have sufficient knowledge of the original language so that interpreted documents can be revisited and their nuances understood afresh if required. This is particularly so for old and/or dated translations of ancient documents done in a different context wherein the tone and substance of some parts of the translated document could be different to contemporary interpretation. The necessity for adequate knowledge of the language cannot be over emphasised. In addition, if the analysis is of pre-historic times, the ability to correctly interpret archaeological reports would be an added bonus. It can be seen that of the three requirements, two primarily are primarily based on the knowledge resident in the individual undertaking the analysis and recording and even the third has an element of the capability of the individual for the authentication of data. In other words, recording history and its completeness is almost totally dependent on the knowledge and capacity of the person undertaking the work! Recording history is essentially a human endeavour and susceptible to all human frailties. Therefore, a corollary is that mistakes, misinterpretations and misunderstandings will automatically be part of such an enterprise.

Before examining the theory and philosophy of history in more detail (in subsequent parts of this paper), two concepts that come up often in the study of history must be explained. First is the concept of what constitutes a nation. At least till well into the 13th century, the territories of a nation changed frequently and its borders were both porous and fluid. In fact, the language and even the religion of a nation altered with external influences and internal upheavals. Therefore, for a major part of recorded history defining a nation as such is difficult although most analysis tends to be recorded and interpreted in terms of ‘nations’. In order to understand and interpret historical facts in this context, an overarching view has to be taken, which requires a great deal of mental agility and flexibility. The second concept is that of a civilisation. For any people or nation to be considered a civilisation requires them to fulfil certain minimum qualifying requirements. The major ones are—a recognisable geographic entity, even if the borders are not rigid; a distinguishable system of centralised governance that regulated interaction with other nations and controlled internal developments; a relatively high standard of living demonstrated through unassailable evidence; and a discernible and verifiable development in the arts, literature, philosophy and science. A related aspect is the fundamental fact that no civilisation could have or can develop in isolation. Interaction and exchange of ideas, trade and even conflict are necessary impetus for the development of civilisation. Therefore, these aspects also need to be examined in order to understand a civilisation. In a broad manner, it can be surmised that a more porous border might be a better catalyst for the development of a civilisation than complete isolation and rigid control of external interaction.

There is a last point that has to be elaborated, before concluding this part of the paper—the relationship between patriotism and history. Patriotism is a zealous love of one’s nation and a willingness to support and defend its interests. This is normally based on an underlying pride in the nation and its historic and contemporary achievements. In an indirect manner history underpins and permeates the overall sense of patriotism in a nation. It is difficult to inculcate a sense of patriotism into someone who does not have at least a base level of knowledge of his or her nation’s history. The more glorified the history of the nation, the easier it will be to develop and cultivate patriotism in the contemporary context. The sense of the greatness of a nation and the ethos of the people, in terms of how they view themselves, stem from the collective and popularly accepted version of the history of the nation. Events and historical facts that is perceived to have brought defeat and shame to the entire nation are, almost always, negative influences on the well-being of a nation. This could perhaps explain the attempts by a number of nations to underplay their wrong doings of the past and to even make attempts to alter the record of events of the past, before they are confirmed as historic facts. Patriotism is a powerful and critical tool for nations to achieve greatness and history is an essential ingredient in creating the necessary aura to develop and instil this intangible quality into the population of a nation.

A VIEW THROUGH THE AGES

An unequivocal understanding of the past is essential to the progress of society and because it forms an indelible part of understanding the past, a clear understanding of history becomes a necessity for all human advancement. Understanding history is based on three major factors. First is the nature of available evidence. Evidence that suggests that an event in the past should be considered a ‘historical fact’ and analysed accordingly will have to be verified for its authenticity and completeness. The nature of the ‘fact’, whether it has potentially long-term impact, or it is only influential in the short-term also needs to be cleared determined. Second is the question of the analysis itself. The analysis must be objective and devoid of any bias so that the event or the historical fact is understood for what actually happened and why. This is a primary requirement to deliver the correct insights and comprehend the influence of the event based on the analysis. Third is the ability of the analyst to extrapolate the event or fact to arrive at logical conclusions regarding its influence. It is important to study the impact of a historical fact at the time it occurred and even more so to trace its influence to the current day or alternatively prove that the influence faded away at some given time in the past. However, even if there is no direct influence that can be ascertained, there will always be indirect influence—stemming from how an event affected the activities and events sometime in the past, which in turn creates a ripple effect that impinges on contemporary undertakings or behaviours.

History through the Ages: A Brief Survey

The classical historians recorded events very close to the time of their occurrence and also endeavoured to record the stories that until then were part of an on-going oral tradition. The most noticeable trend in these narratives is that the historians—Herodotus being considered the first person to record history systematically—took the liberty of fictionalising the activities of the historic leaders and their followers whose deeds they were recording. In order to emphasise the criticality of a particular event, they even wrote fictional speeches thought to have been delivered by the hero or the leader. Unfortunately this methodology tends to give these recordings a biased one-sided nature with almost no analysis being done or cognisance taken of the opposing or even contrary views to that of the heroic leader. Obviously the understanding of history that comes from this will also be biased. Further, in the classical times all writings were fundamentally oriented towards morally improving the reader. This imposed an onerous responsibility on the historians and resulted in their having to foist the philosophy of good and bad, right and wrong, and values that were considered necessary within the interpretation of history. It also became necessary to derive strong moralistic conclusions from the deeds of the heroes. The influence of this requirement was all pervasive in analysing historical fact during ancient times. Over time it has become difficult to differentiate the actual event, and therefore the fact, from the embellishments that were necessarily imposed on the narrative.

By the 12th century A.D., there was a plainly visible but gradual shift from this one-sided and exaggerated reworking of historical facts and events to attempts at ascertaining facts and recording them clearly. History was still stories of monarchs, wars, and battles and epic poems were still the norm in recording the flow of events and their repercussions. However, it is possible to delineate the fanciful accounts of battles or deeds of the king and understand the sequence of events that were being recorded. Another boost was given to introducing more scientific methods to the theory of history by the works of Muslim thinkers around the same time who debated and published extensively on Islamic ethics, political science and philosophy. Ibn Khaldun, a 14th century A.D. philosopher, is often considered to have been the first to introduce scientific methodology to the theory and philosophy of history. He laid the foundation for the analysis of the state, society, communication, trade etc., in a systematic and unbiased manner. By the beginning of the European Renaissance (14th to 17th century A.D.) this process was fairly well understood, even though not universally practiced.

During the Renaissance and into the beginning of the 18th century A.D. the progress of recording history in a scientific manner was gradual, and at times even sporadic, but the evolution was almost always visible. The slow development of the process can be traced through the different historical accounts that are available for perusal. Around this time pure recording of facts—most of the time without any interpretation or accompanying analysis—began to be considered a facet of the theory of history and was undertaken by different groups like clergymen, philosophers and court historians. Dependent on the historian and his proclivities the recorded histories still continued to have elements of moralist arguments and instructions on values to be embedded in them. It was only in the 1850s and thereafter that the focus of recorded history shifted from the ‘magnificent’ deeds of kings and heroes to one of chronicling events with a view to understanding them and their influence through analysis and interpretation. There is considerable work that is on-going to create a body of knowledge on similar lines for the events and records of ancient and pre-modern history.

Contemporary History

Modern historical thought and practice is based on the fundamental belief of history being a linear progression. It is also a fact that an event of the past, from which history evolves, is irreversible and that the future is unpredictable. Ideal history, therefore, would be the recording and unbiased interpretation of what is real, which is only the past. There are three distinct aspects to understanding history based on the premises given above. One, since history is accepted to be a linear progression, then it is also founded on cause and effect in a continuous manner. The second stems from the first. If history is a continuous and interconnected cause and effect cycle, then it will also be a continuous mingling of ideas that could either be harmonious or conflicting. Historically it is seen that in more instances ideas will be contrary, if not fully opposed, than conciliatory. This normally leads to clashes of ideas and associated upheavals that could be small and domestic, or large and engulf neighbouring states as well. Three, since the future is unpredictable all decisions—from the most irrelevant to those that have great significance to the wellbeing of the state itself— are primarily based on experiences and understanding of the past.

If the three aspects are analysed in a combined manner, few conclusions can be drawn. Since the past is irreversible, they will influence and change the present and the future. This change must not only be recognised, but also recorded to be considered for its historical importance into the future. Change that is not recorded does not translate to historical fact and is lost to antiquity. Viewed in this perspective, human history must be a catalogue of change, manifest as social progress that is recorded as historical facts. Further, from a vantage point of contemporary understanding the societal changes should automatically be towards peace and prosperity, not war and destruction in order to be considered progress. Here is where the hypothesis falters. From an academic perspective, this is what should happen—history should be the record of an inexorable movement of human being from ignorance, in some far away time, to enlightenment, here and now. The here and now is the time the analysis is being done whether it is the 14th or the 21st Century. However, the fundamentally intangible element of human behaviour impinges on this idealistic assessment of history and makes it more realistic, aligning it with what happens in the real world. Even though the past is recorded to a large extent, it is a combination of progress and regression, and of peace and war. It is, therefore, not possible to extend a linear line that indicates the progress of human beings. Further, since the line is not a clear linear projection, it is almost impossible to extend it forward to predict the future with any assurance. The unpredictability of the nature and behaviour of human beings percolates into the ethos of nations and makes it difficult to conceive of a peaceful and prosperous future that a purely academic analysis of societal progress tends to predict.

There is another important issue that must be discussed in terms of its impact on recording history. History is a record of clashes— of will and ideology whether religious or political; of territorial ambitions; and possession of riches and resources. Further, history is normally written by the victors—of war, colonisation, and/or religious imperialism. This means that the narrative is generally about wars, conflicts and battles and the aftermath of these activities. Invariably the account of the conflict will be one-sided because the defeated people are not given an opportunity to voice their version and the victors will not have a deep enough understanding, nor will they attempt to gain such information, of the societal norms and other unique features that affect the defeated people. In ancient days, the defeated people were often completely annihilated or made into slaves and ceased to exist as a people or nation. Along with physical subjugation, religious conversions or impositions were also carried out, leaving very limited or no record of previous beliefs and religious practices of the defeated region or nation. Such eradication of the existing religious and social practices of the defeated people leaves an elementary gap in the ability of later historians to understand the people and events.

In more recent times, there has been a trend for the losers also to put forward their viewpoint. The Vietnam War is a prime example. Although the US lost the Vietnam War, there are more books and studies of the war that have been done, and are being done even now, by analysts and historians in the US than in Vietnam. However, this particular instance is not a normal state of affairs. In addition, the accounts that are done in the US are not overly anti-Vietnam, but are generally attempts at analysing the failures of the US Government and military forces. Another aspect is the reinterpretation of history in the newly independent post-colonial nations. A number of these nations have gradually reinterpreted the events that took place during the colonial period and converted them to align with the nationalistic feelings being cultivated in the post-colonial era. This is a visible trend in nations that gained independence in the second half of the 20th Century. While the correctness of such actions can be debated, it illustrates the point made earlier that the victor writes the history and also the fact that historical facts can be interpreted and understood in different ways, especially when the analysis is separated by time.

Contemporary history encompasses the study of geography, demography, economics, societal developments, religious activities and a horde of other sub-sets. It is a far cry from the ancient model of extolling the virtues of larger than life heroes and praising the values of a nation—primarily those of the victors. It has also moved away from a fundamental analysis of human conflict as the primary event that overshadows all others as an indicator of the progress, or otherwise of the human race.

THE UNDERLYING PHILOSOPHY

History is an account of the past, with examinations of how and why a particular event happened followed by the extrapolation of its short to medium term repercussions and long term follow-on influence. Fundamental to ‘good’ history is that it must report the truth in terms of the event being discussed, as far as possible without bias. The question then arises: What is truth in a historical sense? The dictionary variously defines truth as, (a) that which is true; the true or actual facts of a case, (b) conformity with fact or reality; verity, and (c) a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like. However, it is difficult to assess historical facts with sufficient accuracy for them to be verified as absolute truth, always leaving a gap in its verification, however small. Therefore, truth will obviously have a slightly different connotation when applied to a historical fact. To ameliorate this discrepancy, it is necessary to overlay historical facts with a clear analysis of the relationship between the bare descriptions of what is presumed to have happened—as far as decipherable—and the accounts of the events as commonly reported. Any significant divide between the two would need to be reconciled to ensure that the historical fact is as close to the ‘truth’ as possible.

The underlying philosophy of history influences the process of such reconciliation. The philosophy of history consists of the hypotheses, theories, assumptions and conceptual processes that are employed in historical analysis to produce a narrative that depicts the actual events in an acceptable accurate manner. This also includes the philosophy of discussing why a particular event took place and clarifying its meaning and influence in an overarching manner. The analysis could, on the one hand, be the investigation of events, which historians term as critical philosophy and on the other could be a concerted search for recognisable patterns to the events in the past, which is called speculative philosophy. Both methodologies are not fool proof and have their advantages and drawbacks. Hence, for an in-depth understanding of past events, the optimum approach would be to have access to both kinds of analysis.

The Significance of Events

As illustrated in Part I of this paper with the comparison of Alexander’s death with that of a common soldier in his army, the significance of certain events are instinctively clear even to laymen and, therefore, not disputable. Such historical facts need not be further investigated for correctness, but can be analysed as truths. However, in the case of events of lesser consequence, the decision whether or not an event is of significance, and therefore needs to be investigated, will be a matter of judgement. In these cases it is the analyst who will decide whether to research a particular event further or not. The decision could be instinctive, based on intuition and not on facts. Of course, this is not to suggest that analysts arrive at these decisions lightly or even that the intuitive process of historians are wrong, but is highlighted only to underscore the vagaries of the analytical process in history. However, since the process is open to distortion, it is possible that the analysis and further understanding would be biased leading one to believe that a certain amount of imbalance will always prevail in historical awareness.

The subject of historical fact has to be further examined. First, history is a combination of simple and interconnected facts, which combine to create the narrative of an event. This narrative could be termed the interpretation of the event. This is the intrinsic connection between historical fact and interpretation, which could also be called an explanation of what happened, why, how and the follow-on events that stemmed from this primary event. So, obviously, history is an amalgamation of fact, as truthful as can be assumed, and its interpretation. It is therefore necessary to accept the interpretation for what it is and distinguish it from fact, which is a more significant factor. Further, there are no clear guidelines as to the correct balance between historical fact and its interpretation in an analysis; the balance between the two being open to the individual discretion of historians.

Second, almost always, historical facts, an amalgam of a series of independent events, are incomplete for a number of reasons. The narrative of a particular event is built up from available accounts, collective memories—both through the oral tradition and written records—and observations, as well as narratives of connected events, which themselves suffer from similar drawbacks. Further, a number of historical facts are developed from presuppositions of past events or