Chapter 1: How, When and Where
How Important are Dates?
There was a time when historians were fascinated with dates. History was synonymous with dates. It was about battles and big events. However, history is certainly about changes that occur over time. It is about finding out how things were in the past and how things have changed. As soon as we compare the past with the present we refer to time, we talk of “before” and “after”.
Which Dates?
The dates we select, the dates around which we compose our story of the past, are not important on their own. They become vital because we focus on a particular set of events as important. For example, in the histories written by British historians in India, the rule of each Governor-General was important. These histories began with the rule of the first Governor-General, Warren Hastings, and ended with the last Viceroy, Lord Mountbatten.
How do we Periodise?
In 1817, James Mill, a Scottish economist and political philosopher, published a massive three-volume work, A History of British India. In this he divided Indian history into three periods – Hindu, Muslim and British. This periodisation has been widely criticised as it suggests that the religion of the rulers was the only important historical change, and that there were no other significant developments in the economy, society or culture.
Historians have usually divided Indian history into ‘ancient’, ‘medieval’ and ‘modern’. This division too has its problems. It is a periodisation that is borrowed from the West where the modern period was associated with the growth of all the forces of modernity – science, reason, democracy, liberty and equality. Under British rule, people did not have equality, freedom or liberty. Many historians therefore refer to this period as the ‘colonial’ period.
What is Colonial?
Colonialism is a practice or policy of control by one people or power over other people or areas, often by establishing colonies and generally with the aim of economic dominance. In the process of colonisation, the colonisers subjugate the local population and exploit their resources. You will read about the way the British came to conquer the country and establish their rule, subjugating local nawabs and rajas.
Sources of History
Historians use different sources in writing about the past. One important source is the official records of the British administration. The British believed that the act of writing was important. They carefully preserved documents and set up record rooms attached to all administrative institutions. They also established archives and museums to preserve important records.
Other sources include surveys, such as census operations, which became common under the colonial administration. Besides these, we also have diaries of people, accounts of pilgrims and travellers, autobiographies of important personalities, and popular booklets that were sold in the local bazaars. These sources, however, are more difficult to interpret than official records as they were not produced by the ruling class.
Exercise Questions and Answers
1. State whether true or false:
(a) James Mill divided Indian history into three periods – Hindu, Muslim, Christian.
(b) Official documents help us understand what the people of the country think.
(c) The British thought surveys were important for effective administration.
(a) False. James Mill divided Indian history into three periods: Hindu, Muslim, and British.
(b) False. Official documents tell us what the officials thought, what they were interested in, and what they wished to preserve for posterity. They do not always represent the views of the common people.
(c) True. The British believed that a country had to be properly known before it could be effectively administered, and surveys were a key method for gathering this information.
2. What is the problem with the periodisation of Indian history that James Mill offers?
The problem with James Mill's periodisation of Indian history into Hindu, Muslim, and British periods is that it is based on a narrow and incorrect idea. He suggested that the religion of the rulers was the only significant factor in history. This ignores the rich diversity of cultures, societies, and economies that co-existed during these periods. It also incorrectly implies that the periods before British rule were dark and uncivilised, a view used to justify colonial rule.
3. Why did the British preserve official documents?
The British preserved official documents because they believed that the act of writing was crucial for effective administration. They felt that all important documents and letters needed to be carefully preserved. These preserved records of notes, reports, and instructions could then be studied and debated in the future, providing a clear record of every decision and policy. This created a culture of memos, notes, and reports, which they systematically archived.
4. How will the information historians get from old newspapers be different from that found in police reports?
The information from old newspapers and police reports will be very different. Police reports are official records, reflecting the perspective of the colonial administration. They would describe events in a way that serves the interests of the government, often downplaying dissent or presenting a biased view. Newspapers, on the other hand, were read by the public and often reflected a wider range of opinions. While some might have been pro-government, others would have been critical, reporting on protests and expressing the feelings of the common people. Therefore, newspapers can provide a more diverse and often contradictory account of events compared to the singular, official view found in police reports.
Comments
Post a Comment