Historian Dr C I Isaac, the head of a sub-committee of the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT, an autonomous organisation set up by the Government of India in 1961 to assist and advise the Central and Provincial Governments on policies and programmes for qualitative improvement in school education), recently recommended the Council to use the word ‘Bharat‘ instead of ‘India‘ in history books. Dr Isaac, a practising Christian who has been a member of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS, a right-wing Hindu nationalist, paramilitary, volunteer and allegedly militant organisation) from his college days, has argued that “India is only a 150-year-old name“, while “Bharat is a name that is 7,000 years old“. The historian has stressed that Vishnu Puranam talks about the borders of Bharatam. The name Bharata was written in the Brahmi script (the main script used in ancient India from the 3rd to the 6th Century), he added.

As expected, Dr Isaac’s recommendation has triggered a controversy, with a section of experts claiming that he is trying to distort history. These scholars are of the opinion that ever since Narendra Modi became Prime Minister of India in 2014, there has been an effort to change the school syllabus. They have further claimed that Greek Historian and Geographer Herodotus wrote about India and the Indus land (named after the River Indus or Sindhu) in the 5th Century BC. Hence, the word ‘India‘ is not a modern name given by the imperial British rulers as claimed by Dr Isaac. Unfortunately, Politics has never learnt a lesson from History.

More significantly, Dr Isaac also wants to change the three-tiered division of Indian History (Ancient, Medieval and Modern) and to use the term Classical instead of Ancient. He has argued that the colonial British rulers divided Indian History into Ancient Hindu history, Medieval Muslim history and Modern British history. “What they have included in ancient history is just ‘scrap’ which can be dumped into a dustbin. What we had was a golden period where many scientists, like Aryabhatta, Varahamihira, Baudhayan, etc., contributed immensely to science and mathematics. When Galileo was executed (editor’s note: Galileo Galilei was arrested, not executed) for saying the Earth revolved around the Sun, we identified the nature of Earth, space, etc. Our students should learn about this Classical Golden Period of India. That is why we suggested introducing the Classical Period of Indian History, and not Ancient History,” Dr Isaac told Rediffdotcom‘s Shobha Warrier.

It is a fact that colonial historian James Mill (April 6, 1773 – June 23, 1836) divided Indian History into three periods – Classical, Medieval and Modern – as he did in the case of European History. However, he named the three eras as Hindu, Muslim and British Periods, respectively. Mill’s intention was quite clear, as he wanted to show that the religion (of the ruler) had played an important role in pre-colonial India. However, the colonial British Period (and not the Christian Period) was secular and modern. This period was also safe for the people of India. The colonial British historians intentionally suppressed the fact that there were Buddhist and Jain rulers in India even before the establishment of Islamic rule. Again, there were the Vijayanagara and Rajput Kingdoms alongside the Mughal Sultanate in Delhi. Most importantly, there were only a handful of rulers in India’s long history who used to rule according to Hindu scriptures or Islamic Sharia. Hence, the majority of nationalist Indian historians have avoided the terms used by Mill to divide the Indian history, and used the words Ancient, Medieval and Modern.

Although the communal nomenclature is dispensed with, the communal chronology remains. (Mill’s) Hindu Period (up to the 12th Century) and the Muslim Period (up to the mid-18th Century) are known as the Ancient and Medieval Ages, respectively. However, historian Hem Chandra Raychaudhuri completed his ‘Political History of Ancient India‘ by narrating the Gupta Era (6th Century AD). Historian Niharranjan Ray, too, was in favour of changing Mill’s division of time. In his publication ‘History of the Bengali People: Ancient Period‘, Ray used the term ‘Ancient Period‘. However, these two historians did not provide any alternative framework to the colonial three-tiered division of Indian History. The Marxist historians of India made a valuable contribution in this regard, but they rejected Karl Marx‘s interpretation of history.

Classical Marxism prioritises economic change over political events while interpreting history on the basis of Historical Materialism. In Communist Manifesto, Marx mentioned: “The history of all hitherto existing societies is the history of class struggles.” In other words, there is a constant struggle between the two classes – haves (who own the means of production and the distribution of the products) and have nots – in every society. As a result, a new economic system changes the socio-political structure of a society. Although the new system is better than the previous one, exploitation still exists and so does the class struggle. This is how the Slave Society changed into a Feudal Society, and the Feudal Society gave birth to the Capitalist Society. Marx had developed historiography from the point of view of European History. The prevalence of Slavery in Classical Greco-Roman Civilisation and Feudalism in Medieval Europe are historical facts. However, it would be unfair to explain the history of Asia and Africa through this methodology. Marx considered the history of Asia and Africa as the backwardness of these continents. He described the Asian system of production as a static state-controlled despotism that did not initiate historical change in Asian societies.

Marxist historians of Independent India made an attempt to understand the history of their country in terms of socio-economic changes as prescribed by Marx. However, many of them did not agree with Marx’s conclusions. They opined that India’s past was not a history-less, static dictatorship. They claimed that periodical divisions of Indian History in terms of important socio-economic changes could be possible. Following the path shown by Damodar Dharmananda Kosambi, Ram Sharan Sharma has shown in his ‘Indian Feudalism‘ and various essays that Ancient India is not an undivided period until the 12th Century. According to Sharma, a period of revolutionary socio-economic change based on the grant of free land to Brahmins (the upper class) and various religious institutions (the Agrahar System) had taken place from 300 AD to 1200 AD. In fact, the change began in 300-600 AD. And, a new political and socio-economic system came to exist in 600-1200 AD and it could be comparable to Feudalism in Europe.

Feudalism emerged in Medieval Europe after the fall of Roman Civilisation. The main characteristics of the Feudal System was the decline of the power of the Monarch, and the rise of Landlords who used to communicate with both the king and the peasants. The Feudal Lords received lands from the King in exchange for military loyalty, and the peasant serfs used to cultivate those lands. The rise of Islam also played an important role in strengthening the land-centric rural Feudal System. Their expansion in the Mediterranean led to the decline of Europe’s trade, currency and urbanisation. According to Sharma, the post-Gupta Period (600-1200 AD) in India was a period of decline (similar to that of Europe). The accounts of the 7th Century Chinese traveller, Hiuen Tsang (or Xuanzang), mentioned the decaying form of ancient Indian cities, the end of the prosperous Rome-India maritime trade with the fall of the Roman Empire, the rarity of coins of the Bakatkas of the Deccan or the Pala-Sen Kings of Bengal, the use of cowries as a medium of exchange in the absence of coins. The rise of receivers of Agrahar (or Feudal Lords) also happened in India at that period of time. Eventually, large empires, like the Mauryas or the Guptas, were replaced by small regional kingdoms ruled by landlords.

However, this theory is a controversial one. Historian Dineshchandra Sircar claimed that the rise of Zamindars (Landlords) did not mean the decline of royal power, but the revocation of lands because of sedition, too, happened in the eastern Indian Province of Odisha. According to historian Harbans Mukhia, although the conditions of the peasants deteriorated during that period, there was no evidence of the existence of contractual peasants. Hence, the term Feudalism is debatable. Historian Bratindra Nath Mukherjee mentioned in his works that India strengthened maritime trade ties with pre-Byzantine Roman Empire, the Arab region and Southeast Asia. Along with the decline of old cities, many new cities were developed during this period. Historian Brajadulal Chattopadhyay described this as the Third Urbanisation. These historians believe that the rise of small regional states in place of large empires does not mean a political decline as suggested by the colonial historians. Hence, this concept is also debatable.

Several historians are of the opinion that this period was an era of consolidated regional state formation. The rise of Rajput powers or consolidation of a regional state centred around Jagannath Temple in Odisha was a fine example of national solidarity. Therefore, there are different opinions on the debate related to Feudalism. However, each view acknowledges Sharma’s opening statement: post-Gupta Period India exhibits some characteristics of a new era. Hence, it becomes essential to replace the three-tiered division of Indian History by mentioning the period from 600-1200 AD as Early Medieval Age.

Boundless Ocean of Politics on Facebook

Boundless Ocean of Politics on Twitter

Boundless Ocean of Politics on Linkedin

Contact: kousdas@gmail.com

Published by Koushik Das

Koushik Das (born on May 16, 1976 in Kolkata) is a career journalist. Based in the Indian capital of New Delhi, Koushik writes mainly about foreign policies and current geopolitical issues, and rarely about other topics. His own political ideas are highly influenced by Antonio Gramsci, Louis Althusser, Michel Foucault, Michael Oakeshott and others. English philosopher and political theorist Oakeshott (Dec 11, 1901-Dec 19, 1990) says that “in political activity, men sail a boundless and bottomless sea. There is neither harbour for shelter nor floor for anchorage, neither starting-place, nor appointed destination. But we have to keep afloat”. (Rationalism in Politics, 1962) As a student of Political Science, Koushik loves to share his views on issues, which have great impacts on his thought process (and also on India, South Asia and of course on the global community), with his readers through his website – Boundless Ocean of Politics. By doing so, he tries to keep himself afloat. You will find some of his articles in https://inserbia.info/today/ (https://inserbia.info/today/author/kou_das13_i/), as he has been trying to assess the global geopolitics since 2003. You can also mail him at kousdas@gmail.com View all posts by Koushik Das