Chapter One. An Agenda For Indoloqical Historiography In Colonial Bengal - A Story 0^' Historians / Culture And Power

Transcription

1 Chapter One An Agenda For Indoloqical Historiography In Colonial Bengal - A Story 0^' Historians / Culture And Power We shall talk here of the history of our historians %-nriting, during the colonial times, the history of our country. We shall also talk of the process in which the writing of history was mediated by the consciousness of a community trying to exercise its autonomy against a colonial power. We talk here of the historians. In the process, we talk of ourselves. Our concern here is with Indological historiography mainly in Bengali language. Our concern is thus with the development of the art of historiography in a particular language; even more, our concern is with that particular structure of historical consciousness which we have designated according to custom as Indology. We are thus seized with two things whose domains always intersect, but may often not coincide. These two domains are, one, the structure of historical knowledge known as Indology; two, the structure which converts this knowledge into a category of Bengali nationalist thought. People's life today is characterised by a remembrance of the life in past. The life of the past has to be judged by the fate of the life of the nation #. today. This alterity, the presence of the Other is the site

2 of intersection of the two domains : an Indological past/ India at present, colonial domination/national consciousness, alien power/our autonomy, absence of historical memory/a historiographical construction of a memorable past, and finally subjugation to them/our history. The historiography of a community is the field where the intersections occur. v. Thus, in trying to talk of historiography we not merely talk of the art of history writing, but also of the cultural dynamics in which national consciousness and national power was sought to be exercised in opposition to colonial reality. Historiography is an approach to history with a varied dimension pertaining to the art, the method, the inspiration and other aspects of writing history. Hence, the study of historiography of a nation is the study of the evolution of a nation's social and historical thinking. The historian as well as the matter of his historical enquiry should be thus viewed in terms of a reciprocal relation. So, merely by cataloguing the list of historians and their works or by just shotting the extent and variety of their fields of enquiry, nothing much can be achieved. In the last analysis history is as the historian views it. He has before him a set of data called from different sources which he checks, composes, verifies and arranges in an orderly sequence. Up to this he works like a scientist. But then on his role is that of a creative artist. His or her

3 3 reconstruction of the past is his^own which is bound to be subjective. So, the main task of historiography is to understand and critically elaborate the view point of the historian and its relevance in a given space and time. This interplay between both the object and the subject shows further that like history itself, historiography is also not a static thing. Like the former it too flows with the flow of time. Yet, we shall soon have occasion to show that this definition and conceptualisation of historiography is not enough. It admittedly takes into account the question of cultural environment. But, it certainly does not consider the possibility or the potentiality of history being used in the interest of power. More specifically speaking, such a definition of historiography cannot incorporate a study of the dynamics of historiography in a colonial setting - in other words history for whom, against whom. In any case, if historiography is judging the history of history writing in terms of culture and power, Indological historiography in Bengali language in the colonial period, then, raises three important questions : what constituted that particular body of knowledge which came to be known as Indology? in what way this Indology turned into a carrier of nationalist ideas? and finally the critical role of language in effecting that marriage,

4 for the intersection of these two axis occurs on the terrain of language.' In recent times, there have been some attempts at broad surveys of the development of historiography in regional languages. These attempts have followed two main paths of survey. In some, thematic surveys have been attempted, while in others, historians as individuals practising their craft in regional languages have been discussed. However, in both cases we get reflections of the connection between assertion of local identity and local history writing. Local consciousness is legitimised through the objectified form of local identity, i.e., local history. On the other hand, local history writing becomes the legitimate and moral vocation of the litterateurs of a particular community. Regional history and 1. J.P. De Souza and C.M. Kulkarni (eds.). Historlography in Indian Languages (Delhi s Oriental Publishers, 1972); Devahuti (ed.). Problems of Indian Historiography (Delhi D.K. Publications, 1979); Tarasankar Banerjee (ed.),' Historiography in Modern Indian Languages (Calcutta : Naya Prakas, 1987); Tarasankar Banerjee (ed,), Indian Historical Research Since Independence (Calcutta s Naya Prakas, 1986); S.P. Sen (ed.), Historians and Historiography in Modern India (Calcutta ; Institute of Historical Studies, 1973); Subodh Kumar Mukhopadhyay, Evolution of Historiography in Modern India' (Calcutta : K.P. Bagchi, 1981).

5 5 historiography may thus become the vehicle of what is known as subnationalism. Nineteenth century enlightenment had thus a paradoxical effect. While urging upon the intellectuals to think in terms of broad human civilization, it provoked local identities. * Indeed, we can go to the extent of claiming that local historiography began to be 2 used as a tool for local political claim. However, as we shall see, if Indology motivated the intellectuals of a* particular coimiunity in thinking not only in terms of India, but also in terms of the identity of their own region, subsequent historiographical studies have focused on only the cultural aspect of it and neglected the question of power. The ambivalent relation between pan Indianism and local consciousness in the historiography of a particular language is reflected in the ambivalence prevalent on a broader canvas - that between Indology and a language (community oriented) based historiography. In most of the researches on historiography, this parallel growth of Indology and local 2. In Assam, for example, the rise of Maniram Dewan occasioned the rise of a spate of local history writings. See S.L. Baruah, "Historiography in Assamese Language in the Nineteenth Century and the British Response to it" in Historiography in Modem Indian Languages.

6 3 consciousness is neglected. This constitutes the research gap in a discussion on Indological historiography in a regional language. Our story of the century long development of Indological historiography in Bengali language has to be, therefore, a story of culture and power too expressed in terms of the historiography of growth of historical consciousness. We seek to fill up the research gap in this way. We shall try to locate the development of nationalist consciousness through our historical accounts of the historians. Historiography and the question of language By now it should be clear that language has to be regarded as not merely the vehicle of a particular historiography, but itself the thematic of it. As we shall be continuously showing, history in the modern rationalist sense came to the Bengalis in form of Indology. Thus, discovering the history of India and Bengal in Indological terms became the problematic. Yet, the situation ordained that this 3. For example, in Subodh Kumar Mulchopadhyay's account, colonialism is almost absent. Except the section on "Nationalist School of Economic Historians", nowhere else the reader will feel that the evolution of historiography in modern India had taken place against the colonial/national background. See Evolution of Historiography in Modern India :

7 7 search for India s history would be carried out in Indological terms and there by Iridology itself became the proble- 4 matic as well as the thematic. To put it in simpler terms, we have to see how the particularity of the language Itself constituted in a particular way historical knowledge for the Bengalis known as Indology. Indology is, in one sense, knowledge of India - of its past, its history, culture and society. Yet, why it is not simply Indian history or the history of India? Ranjit Guha has provided a brilliant argument. According to him, Indian past had to be converted into a category 5 of British knowledge of India. That knowledge had very little to do with a rationalist quest of history, but had a lot to do with administrative reasons of a colonial power. 4. Modern researchers on historiography while have discussed more than adequately the works of Hem Roy Chowdhury, Radha Govinda Basak, Ramesh Majumdar or earlier the works of Rajendralal Mitra etc., adequate analysis seems to be lacking on, what constituted the continuing theme in the works of these historians? And what indeed was the problematic in the historiographical journey? See, for example, D. K. Ganguly, "Changing Pattern of Ancient Indian History in West Bengal", in Indian Historical Research since Independence pp ? or, see Shyamali Sur, "Bangalir Itihas Charchar Kayekti Dik", Aitihasik, Vol.l, No.l, Baisakh 1380 B.S. 5. Ranjit Guha, An Indian Historiography of India ; A Nineteenth Century Agenda and its Implications (Calcutta : K.P. Bagchi, 1988)-^ pp

8 The body of Orientalism in India was thus consisting of two intersecting strands, one, the Orientalist quest of the Europeans; second, the colonial Imperative of incorporating g India's past in the colonial present. Thus, Grant's An Historical and Comparative Analysis of the Finances of Bengal (1786), Charles Stewart's History of Bengal (1813), Marsh- man's Outline of the History of Bengal (1834) and Hill's History,of British India (1848), reproduced themselves through the process of language in a metamorphosized form in Ram Ram Basu's Raja Pratapadltya Charitam (1801), Rajani Kanta Gupta* Banqalir Itihas (1879), Kaliprasanna Bandopa- dhyay's Banqlar Itihas (1901) and later massive works on Bengal's history by Rakhal Das and others. However, we must not oversimplify this argument. The metamorphosis did not mean a direct aping of colonial 6. Though in some subsequent sections we shall discuss the legacy of Orientalists which constructed that branch of knowledge known as Indology, we shall not anticipate that full story now. It is sufficient to recall at this stage the instance of William Jones as the site of the afore said intersection. See S.N. Mukherjee, Sir William Jones : A Study in Eighteenth Century British Attitudes to India (Cambridge j Cambridge University Press, 1968). There are however other books too on William Jones - the first coming out from London in 1308 as Memoirs by John Shore; A.J, Arberry gave the name of his book Asiatic Jones (1946) and J.D. Bearce; British Attitudes Towards India, (1961).

9 necessities but a much more fundamental change in the terms of the discourse of history. Ranjit Guha has argued, puranic time changed into secular time, myth changed into history, royal panegyries changed into secular biographies, genealogy changed into rationalist research and discourse of community changed into discourse of India as one single homogeneous entity. This transformation further meant that history would no longer be the work of an outsider writing on a king but history written by us on us. The historian thereby remained no longer a mere chronicler, he became a political interventionist. It was in this way history became a matter of identity, more particularly a matter of politics of identity. Indologv signified history in this particular role. Lastly, Indology meant another change. If it has been argued, that through Indology history became sovereign and dominant over purans, myths and folklore, it also signified that history was soon going to be dominated by ethnography? in other words, history became surrogate to ethnology. The development of Indology into the ethnological accounts of colonialists like Hunter, Dalton, Risley etc., bears this out. Inexorably, again, this ethnological turn changed into a nationalist category through the works of Ramaprasad Chanda, Nihar Ranjan Ray and others. In short, Indology acquired the role of a solvent of epic time into modem time through the deus-ex- 7 machina of modem knowledge and language. 7. An Indian Historiography of India, pp

10 10 The question of metamorphosis, therefore, calls for a shift in our attention from Indology to language. History in nineteenth century was often regarded as part of literature. I'ixiern structuralist history writing was still a far cry. The development of language was the critical thing. Thus, the period from 1801 when Rem Ram Basu's Pratapaditya Charitra was published as the first Bengali historical narrative to 1874 when Vahqadarsana started publishing essays on the history of the Bengalis can be regarded as one when both developments took place - the development of modem Bengali language and literature as also the development of modem historical consciousness among the Bengalis. Without development of prose and essays in social criticism in contemporary periodicals like Sambaa Kaumudi (1821), Samachar Chand'rika (1822), Vividartha-Sangraha ( , ) Rahasya Sandarva ( , , ), and above all Tattvabodhini Patrlka ( ), this development in prose language and the form of writing essays in social criticism would not have been possible. However in most of the historiographical analysis, this development is neglected. The nineteenth century Bengali historian, wc shall have repeated occasions to show, was above all a social critic. This social-critical consciousness enabled the historian to assimilate the developing discipline of Indology

11 11 into the art of constructing his/her land's own identity 8 and turn Indology into an Indian history of India. We shall later on see in detail, how literary periodicals enabled the Bengali Indologist become the nationalist Bengali historians.' There was one more way in which the linguistic and literary developments in the nineteenth century Bengal influenced the course of Indological historiography. Nineteenth century Bengali literature besides developing the essay-form on the basis of the assimilation of rationalist xvestern education, also witnessed the triumph of the novel. Novel in nineteenth century was above all historical novel. Novel, the modern literary genre, expressed in a far more vigorous way the historical consciousness among the Bengalis than 8. Vakil Ahmad's two volume study on the development of the consciousness of the Bengali Muslims amply bears this out. In his discussions on Mahamedan associations like the Mahamedan Literary Society and others and of personalities like Abdul Latif,' Syed Amir All, Mir Masaraf Husain, t Abdul Karim, periodicals like Kohtoiur, Mlhir etc., Vakil Ahmad stresses the development of a modern Bengali Muslim culture and language. The invocation of a mixed Sanskrit- Persian heritage and a popular Hindu-Muslim identity would have remained inconceivable without the development of modern Bengali language. See Vakil Ahmad, Unis Satake Banqali Musalmaner Chlnta Chetanar Dhara, 2 VoIs (Dacca : Bangala Academy, 1983); Vol.l, pp , , ; Vol.II, pp

12 12 i- historical essays paper. We have to only call in mind the novels of Bankimchandra, Ramesh Chandra Dutta, Hara- prasad Shastri and others. Novel implied a full story form, with the narrative having a beginning and end. Thus, a rationalist history under, the literary impact of novel would strive to write a full history of the land with clearly defined contours. By contrast, the dominant literary form in the first half of nineteenth century was the naksha, literally meaning the sketches. The naksha would write on a particular history and sociology always in a half fantasy form, satirical in tone, truth and anonymity in combination. The naksha form was in a way an anti-historical form. It would deal with historical truth, but would care c- little to establish it as history. The v^ftory of the literary form of novel over naksha signified the beginning of writing full length rationalist construction of past and present. Thus, in our survey, we could take only one example of naksha, that of the Owl (Hutam Pencher Naksha) as by definition historical essays removed naksha from its 9 category. Nineteenth century Bengali historiography had two models before it even when writing on Indology. One was that of the historian Macaulay, to whom' history must include 9. On the naksha form, see, editorial introduction by Arun Nag to Kaliprasanna Singha, Hutam Pencher Naksha (Calcutta s Subarnarekha, reprint 1991).

13 13 imagination, must prove the victory of the ideals of progress, (a classic Whig interpretation) and must apotheosize modernism; the other was that of Ranke to whom facts and factual narrative alone would become the subject of history. The Bengali Indologist encountered these models from his own background which was steeped in kulaj? tradition, naksha form and adulatory biographies of a range of personalities from.chaitanya to Pratapaditya. Thus, the assimilation of Macaulay and Ranke was never a straightforward mission for the Bengali historian. It was completely an eclectic journey. Thus, though the positivist legacy of Macaulay and the rationalist - empiricist legacy of Ranke appealed to the Bengali intellectual mind, the tradition of Carlyle arguing for Mthe great man theory of history" also equally motivated him. Already Bengali language had the tradition of composing biographies, for example, of Krspa, Chaitanya, and others; now Indologists'and historians like Rajendralal, Rajani Kanta Gupta, Akshay Maitra turned to writing biographical histories.*0 This too, we shall discuss in greater detail in our subsequent discussion. Besides all this, language signified the entry of the popular in the domain of 10, Shyamali Sur, op.cit., pp 20-22; on the problem of locating authenticity in biographical history writing, see Edward C. Dimock, Jr, "On Impersonality and Bengali Religious Biography" in M. Nagatomi, B.K. Matilal, J.M. Masson and E. Dimock (eds), Sanskrit and Indian Studies (Dordrecht ; D. Reidel Pub, 1979)^ pp

14 14 history. Language, culture, nation, people - became the connecting thread in the construction of an Indological past by the Bengali historian. Thus a discussion of language which is intrinsically a shared thing, leads us to a discussion of the element of the popular in our historiography. People, culture and Indian history and Bengal Tagore wrote in his "Bharata Varsher Itihas" that the history of India is not exactly the history of the state; in other words, Indian history is not exactly a political history.^ Tagore's argument was that the dynamics in Indian historical process was an assimilative dynamics which aimed at assimilating the various communities and social strata in the Indian society. It was the opposite of the historical experience of the West where state grew out of the conflictive ethos and political power grew out of the victory of one estate over another, one class over the others, one nation over other nations. India, to Tagore, represented an alternative ethos. Religion was not mere a set of scriptures and outlook, but the geist of Indian history Rabindranath Tagore, "Bharat Varsher Itihas" Vahgadarsana, Bhadra, 1309 (B.S.); Tagore repeated the same theme in "Bharat-Itihas-Charcha", Santiniketan, Chaitra, 1326 (B.S.). "Bharat Varsher Itihas" was later on included in his book Bharatvarsha (1312 B.S.); Tagore's essays and review articles on Indian history were later on compiled into one volume by Prabodh Chandra Sen and Pulin Behari Sen (eds), Itihas (Calcutta s Visva Bharati, 1362 B.S.). 1^14-15.

15 -: 15 :- Religion was the way of life, the guide to social conduct and the observance of the various stations in life. Thus, Tagore's argument ran, political changes at the top rarely touched the community life below and a history that concentrated on dynastic changes, bloody warfare, conquests and plunder was not the history of Bharatavarsha. To Tagore such a type of history was a history of nightmares. Even when conquests upturned the political system, dynasties changed overnight or even when India" had not been turned into a land of the foreigners, India was there, the Indian people were there. Social life went on untramelled. Tagore asked rhetorically, was not the history of this social continuity the genuine history? Should not the Indian people become the subject of Indian history? It would be wrong to dismiss this argument as mere fancy wards of a poet, it influenced many a contem- 13 porary leading historian. 13. Jadunath Sarkar translated Tagore's longish essay "Bharatavarsher Itihaser Dhara" (Pravasi, Baisakh, 1319 B.S.) in English and had it published in Modern Review (August and September, 1913) under the title "My Interpretation of Indian History". Dvijondranath Tagore commented on that essay in Pravasi (Asar, 1319 B.S.). Tagore's essay "Sivaji 0 Guru Govinda Singha" (Pravasi, Chaitra 1316 B.S.) was used as foreward to Sarat Kumar Roy's Sikh Guru 0 Sikh Jati (1317 B.3.). This too was translated by Jadunath Sarkar in English as "The Rise and Pall of the Sikh Power" (Modern Review, April 1911). Tagore had a very close relation

16 16 * mm Tagore found some similarity with American history which had turned that country into a melting pot. Yet, he also remarked that American assimilation was often based on force. By contrast Indian assimilation allowed for diversity and a plural culture. Furthermore, this assimilation was never achieved under the tutelage or coercion of any political agency, e.g., the state. But, the independent existence of the society was impaired severely after British conquest. Hence, Tagore made a significant remark? This is the reason as to why what the English have taken to be history is the history of India only after the Muslim conquest. However, it does not mean that there has been a total change in the nature of Indian history after 14 foreign conquest. Throughout Tagore s scattered comments on Indian history, the notion is omnipresent that Indian history has its own spirit, this history has never been strictly politi- (footnote 13 contd.) with historian Akshay Maitra. In our subsequent discussions on Akshay Maitra we shall recall this. His essay "Aitihasik Chltra" was published as foreward to AitiKasik Chitra edited by Akshay Maitra from Rajshahi (1899). He also published two review essays on Akshay Maitra's Sira.juddaula in Bharatl (Sravana, 1305 B.S., Bhadra 1305 B.S.) 14. "Bharat-Itihas-Charcha, in ItlHas, p 81.

17 -: 17 cal; India has never been a nation but a civilization; and we have to change the whole meaning of history in order to understand the contiunity of Indian popular life. This view point calls for some explanations. First, the stress on the popular element in history leads Tagore's philosophy of Indian history along the classic idealist line, where the country's history is supposed to have some unique spirit that goes on manifesting itself. Interestingly, he never attempts to rigorously analyse this popular element and the social contradictions that this element suffers. Secondly, the existence of people is conceived of as communities and communities appear as the countervailing power to political force. Tagore's long winding explanation about Brahmin-K?hatriya struggle bears out this observation. Thirdly, these remarks anticipate the question, if Indian history is so unique why are there such frequent foreign invasions, and the Indian passivity before it? Though, elsewhere Tagore went to a great extent in decrying Indian passivity and social stagnation, his own historical explanations do not logically lead to that. In any case, his stress on the popular in his readings of Indian history influenced a great many Indologists who employed their professional skill to unearth the historical roots of popular culture in Bengal. We have to only think of personalities like Haraprasad Shastri, Akshay Maitra, Kshitimohan Sen, Prabodh Chandra Sen to appreciate the significance of his influence

18 18 upon contemporary Indological researchers in Bengal. Yet, this was the classic Orientalist bind. India was something unique. The East was distinct from the West. The West looked at India as something special and India had to be judged not in her own terms, but always in terns of West whether in opposition or in conformity. As we shall show repeatedly, this Orientalism, of which Indology was born had two simultaneous elements. One, accepting the terms of Western historical discourse; two, at the same time effecting a nationalist transformation whereby Orientalism leads to knowing one's own people. Tagore of all his contem poraries expressed this double connotations most philosophically and hence his pervasive influence upon the nationalist Indological historians of Bengal. It will be wise if we keep this in mind when tracing the course of modern historical consciousness among.the Bengalis. If the attention toward the popular led the historian to thinking of Indian history as something unique, very naturally it led in the next stage into thinking of Bengal also as something equally unique. Some critics have already criticised this 'obsession' with the 'unique1 role of Bengal and it is worthwhile to take a brief look into 15 this question. We have already noted the ambivalence 15. Prabha Dixit, "Modern India and the Bengal's School of History s A critique" in Problems of Indian His toriography, pp

19 19 between an Indological historiography of India and that of Bengal. A careful reading of the works of some twentieth century Bengali historians would show that inspite of their different thematic engagements and their chronological placement almost all of them showed a near unanimity in historica- iiy establishing the cultural primacy of Bengal. For the Indological historians of Bengal# India which was not a magnified version of Bengal# it would seem# did not exist at all. Akshay Maitra's letters to the famous art critic^ O.C. Ganguly# were directed at establishing the impact of Gauglya art on the art of whole eastern India as well as that 16 of East Asia. Later historians like Rakhal Das# Jadunath and others continued with this theme. With great pride Jadunath Sarkar wrote in the second volume of the History of Bengal# Bengal became a path-finder and a light-bringer to the rest of India. If Periclean Athenes was the school of hsllas# the eyes of Greece# mother of arts and eloquence# that was Bengal to the rest of India under the British rule. In this new Bengal originate every good and great thing of Modern World that passed on to the other provinces of India. From Bengal went forth the English 16 Akshay Maitra# Sagarika# ed. by Nirmal Chaudhury# (Calcutta i Sahityalok# 1986)^ pp

20 20 educated teachers and the European inspired thought that helped to modernize 17 Bihar and Orissa# Hindustan and Deccan. We have similar comments from Jadunath in India Through The Ages (1926), and Fall of the Mughal Empire (Vol.IV, revised edition, 1950). This theme of establishing the special place of Bengal continued through out the course of twentieth century historiography. Yet, it posed a problem for the historians. If Bengal was so special, v/hy did it not have a comprehensive history? Why were there so many gaps like the period before the Palas, that after the Senas? Why was there such scandals as associated with the name of Sasanka, the cowardice of Lakshmana Sena, the bigotry of Danuja Mardana, the vulnerability of Pratapaditya and the sordid event enacted by Siraj in the Black Hole tragedy? As we shall see in the section on the modern historians on Bengal, their continuous engagement was with the project of clearing up these unsolved issues, and constructing a full and comprehensive account of the history of Bengal from earliest to the modern times. The Dacca history project and similar other attempts were fruits of such an engagement. It has to be noted in this connection, in continuance of Tagore s argument, these Bengali historians attempted to establish Bengal's uniqueness primarily in cultural 17. Jadunath Sarkar, History of Bengal, Vol.II (Reprint, Patna : Academic Publishers, 1973)^ p 498.

21 21 terms. Bengal's history as the Dacca volumes would subsequently show was more a cultural history than a political history. If Bengal had been poor in politics, she had excelled in culture. And, Indeed, this cultural excellence seemed to have no direct connection with the State. Of course, the historians argued, the Vaisnava culture flourished because of a stable Sultan Period and earlier Buddhist culture had flourished because of Pala-Sena rule. We have to only remember the arguments of Jadunath Sarkar regarding Gaudiya culture and that of Nihar Ranjan Ray regarding the cultural profile of Bengal during the Pala-Sena days. However, \*;e should not anticipate that story here. We can only make the comment that in Bengal's historiography, politics and culture remained in a permanent state of disjunction. Some methodological questions in studying Indoloqical historiography in Bengal There is a general agreement among scholars that nineteenth century romantic movement in Exit ope created the proper historical attitude and the historiography of the age. In terms of the increase of positive historical knowledge the elaboration of sound historical methods, the enlargement of the range of historical evidence and in the development of the historical way of looking at things, the nineteenth century stood out in a conspicuous way. The philosophical Orientation of historical works like Gibbon's Decline and Fall of Roman Empire was now remodelled to become a scientific

22 22 and intellectual apparatus to scholarship. This new Orientation signified applying evolutionism, historical relativism and positivism to history. All this meant history was supposed to bring into open hidden laws of evolution of society, trying to situate the past in terms of the past and the mastery of 'the objective scientific critical methods'. The nineteenth century historiography was still a long way from the spirit of modern French historians that sought to instal oneself in the movement, to understand history that was always in a state of flux, by being one with it. In short, historiography understood in the European - liberal sense involved conceptualising an object of history and historical studies, an attitude to sources, a methodology and a principle of determination. The history of European history writing in nineteenth and early twentieth centuries tells us how that history was written on the basis of facts which obliged the historian to tell of them; it was also a history that the historian had made. One is Icnown in the discipline of historiography as the Rankian method the other X 3 the Collingwood thesis. Yet, all these scholarly attempts at finding different ideas of historiography meant very little for an Indian historiography of India. Though 18. On situating nineteenth century historiography, seo, P. Geyl, Debates with Historians (London : Batsford, 1955)^ R.G. Collingwood, The Idea of History (Oxford : OUP, 1961).

23 23 twentieth century Bengali historians were influenced by a rationalist positivist outlook, yet we would understand very little of the dynamics of Indological historiography in Bengal, if we confine our attempts only to finding out the impact of Western history writing on our own authors. The dynamics of an Indian historiography of India has to be sought in something else. The liberal ideas on historiography that seek to understand this discipline in terms of positivism, cultural relativism and rationalism will often fail to find out what led to the specific growth of an Indological historiography in nationalist terms. Thus in many of the historiographical studies, colonialism, nationa- 19 lism and the question of power seem to be simply absent. Our study on Indological historiography in Bengal will thus follow a different approach that will try to situate Bengali historiography in terms of colonialism, nationalism and power. It is power which remains the leit motif in our story of Bengali history writing and the growth of 19. The conventional approach to classifying the Indological historical works is dividing them on the basis of contents like political, social, economic, local, external relations, etc. This is the approach followed by Shyamali Sur. Others have attempted to construct 'different schools' of historians, like evolutionary, nationalist, multidimensional school of cultural and social historians, rational, etc. This is the method followed by Subodh Mukhopadhyay.

24 24 historical consciousness among the people of Bengal. Thus# the methodology for studying historiography here is dictated by the imperative to draw a different kind of history of our historiography. And# the various pronouncements based on a liberal view of historiography will be of little help to us. The question posed before us is therefore : how can we trace the presence# growth and dominance of the concept of national power in the course of our Indological historiography? What should be the best method for selecting evidences of Indological historiography to prove that colonialism# nationalism and power structured the world of Indological consciousness? How are we to detect the recurrent thanes in the century - long Indological historiography in Bengal which marked the texts as not merely historiographical texts, but in a profound way marked' them as texts of power? Before rounding off our introductory remarks# we have to thus devote a few lines on the methodology and structure of this work. However# a few more comments on theories historiography are in order to justify the notion and methodology of historiography followed here. Theories of historiography tell us, how the historians should write history. But do they tell us adequately how to dissect the historiographical structure? We can take up E.H. Carr's What is History? to understand the problem.

25 25 Carr wrote, "to praise a historian for his accuracy is like praising an architect for using well seasoned timber or perperly mixed concrete in his building. It is a necessary condition of his work, but not his essential 20 function." Carr argued taking a leaf from Collingwood"s The Idea of History (1945) that besides accuracy there remained something called philosophy of history. The reconstitution of the past, Carr admitted, depended much on 21 it. Then, Carr went on to conceptualise the notion of philosophy of history by discussing society and the individual, history, science and morality, causation in history, and the notion of history as progress. In conceiving of history as progress, Carr was not however arguing for a post facto justification of everything that happened in history. Yet, Carr spoke of the 'widening horizon' of history and said "It is, however, not the waning of faith in reason among the intellectuals and the political thinkers of the English-speaking world which perturbs me most, but the loss of the pervading sense of a 22 world in perpetual motion. In this argument that calls for painstaking historical research to be combined with a philosophy of history that appreciates the world to be in 20. E.H. Carr, What is History? (Harmondsworth : Penguin, 1964)^ pp Ibid, p Ibid, p 155.

26 26 IOq, motion,^/may get certain help in our own problem. Yet, as we shall show, still that remains inadequate. Carr's argument on history contains the best of the liberal tradition in historiography. The confidence that the twentieth century Bengali historians in the colonial times showed in writing an ethnological account of the country and a fully reconstructed history of Bengal, authenticates much of what Carr was to argue in Indological historiography in Bengal that we shall be surveying certainly showed an ambivalence between the historian and his facts, between the society and the individual, between reason and morality and between causation and result - all which Carr discussed. The concepts of golden age, anarchy, dark period, British rule as the harbinger of reason, history as selfengagement of a people, all these and many others were the product of such an ambivalent relationship. Yet, this begets the question, how could the twentieth century Bengali historians like Rakhal Das or Jadunath achieve that measure of confidence? Or, the question, what indeed led to that anguish cry of Bankim, Bengal must have her own history. Otherwise there is no hope for Bengal. Who is to write it? You have to write it. I have to write it. All of us have to write it. Anyone */ho is a Bengali has to write it...

27 27 Come, let us join our efforts in investigating the history of Bengal... It is not a task that can be done by any one person alone; it is a task for all of 23 us to do together. We shall be referring to this agenda set by Bankimchandra again and again in course of our writing. Presently, we have to see only how Carr's calm and reasoned exposition on historiography leaves the urgency of this agenda unanswered. Or, we can take even another point. As we shall be showing, our historians were not at all closed to the idea of a world in motion. After all, these historians belonged to a colonised people and who more than they could keep it in historical consciousness that times do change, power does change from hand to hand? Yet, that sense of a changing world is not enough to tell us how the structure of a historiography belonging to a colonised country was made, amended and unmade. It is for all these reasons that our view and method of historiographical analysis has to take a separate path. The awareness of a people to the reality of power thus occupies a crucial place in our exposition. The phase from the early historical works to Vangadarsana is the phase when our historians realised the loss of power. This was 23. Bankim Rachanaball, Vol.II (Calcutta : Sahitya Sansad, );p 337.

28 28 also the phase when puranic India and modern India, precolonial Bengal and modern colonised Bengal etc., had to be defined and differentiated in historiographical terms. Once this is done in the discourse of historiography, the emphasis changes. This was roughly the end of nineteenth century, the end of the period of Vangadarsana, the awakening of modern nationalist sentiment and urge to define India and Bengal in modern nationalist term. Though situating the nineteenth and the twentieth centuries as different time zones in the development of Indological historiography in Bengal should not be done too literally, yet, the shift in terms of discourse is too apparent to be neglected. The sense of loss of power is now supplemented by an urgent awareness of the need to acquire and possess power. Colonial power is defined in terms of its opposite, national power. We shall show in works of Rajani Kanta Gupta, Akshay Maitra, Jadunath Sarkar, Nihar Ranjan Ray etc., how even when colonialism was not being mentioned, these historians remained engaged in defining and narrating the story of the nation. This is the reason why we hare sought to avoid by and large the traditional classification of historiographical works in our country and hare chosen to emphasize upon an exposition of the elements that went into making the Indological consciousness. In displacing both the categories of a pre-modern historical sense with modern notions and Orientalist terms

29 29 of discourse with nationalist terms of discourse, the Bengali Indological historian from the earliest time was engaged in replacing myth with knowledge, often substantiating the former with the later. Richard Barkhoffer has argued that it is easy to take myth to be superstition and to posit knowledge opposed to myth. But he has shown, it is very difficult to distinguish between knowledge and belief and to think of myth in terms of something false' and 'unreal'. Barkhoffer defines the entire problematic in terms of cultural history, the aim of which would bo to show how the historian of today always tackles the dual problem of myth and history in terms of his cultural boha- 2 A viour. Such a behaviourallst approach too cannot specifically address the question of the whole regime of colonialism and the consequent growth of the consciousness of a nationality under the shadow of which Indological historiography had grown here. Hence, it is not enough to say that the implications of the culture concept for historical analysis are grave. For, the intellectual history of a colonial people must specifically address to the relationship between culture and power. The historical explanations offered by different Bengali historians on what they thought to be riddles in Indian history like the exact nature of Armanisation, the decline of Buddhism and an accompanying 24. Robert F. Barkhoffer, Jr., The Behavioral Approach to Historical Analysis (London......H'S-1...1"""-"' Vie Collier-Maemillan, /Ygjo

30 30 conversion of Islam on a massive scale, the golden and the dark ages etc., might have been different from each other. Yet, an historical explanation in behavioural perspective would be blatantly inadequate to explain the lander lying common theme of a nation's and people's identity binding all the aspects of Indological historiography 25 in one single structure. As David Potter has argued, historians uses nationalism and nationalism uses the historian. He has remarked, Just as the rise of nationalism has been the major political development of modern times, so attention to the national group than to other groups has correspondingly become perhaps the major focus of modern historians. Accordingly, the identity of people in terms of nationality has grown to transcend all other identities Ibid, Chap.XIII, "Historical Explanation and Synthesis in Behavioral Perspective"; the behaviouralist view of historiography has influenced many seemingly enlightened accounts of Indian historiography. See, for example. Sheikh Ali, History : It's Theory and Method (Madras : Macmillan, 1963), Chap.XIV "Indian Historiography : Modern Period", pp Fehren Bacher (ed), History and American Society - Essays of David M. Potter (New York : QUP, 1973)^ p 62.

31 * 30A However, to Potter also nationalism Is only a "tendency, an inpulse, an attitude of mind rather than an 27 objective determinate thing," This is again explaining historiography in psychological and behavioural terms. The structure of historical consciousness is left at the mercy of the vageries of behaviour of the actors, in this case, the historians. Thus, it would seem, the difference between Rajendralal Mitra and Nihar Ray is simply in terms of cultural behaviour, A discerning critic has remarked, the most serious inadequacy stemming from the immaturity of historical social science is the continued adherence to 28 the inherited problematic of history. In our case it means the Bengali Indologist had to grapple with the received notions of what history is and while incorporating the received wisdom on history had to make continuous efforts at overcoming the boundaries of that received definition. In the case of Indological historiography in Bengal, the attempt at writing a social history was a revolution of sorts. Writing under the shadow of Mill's history and 27, Ibid, p 64; for similar views see Edward R. Tannen baun's "Review of Jerzy Topolsky, Methodology of History", History and Theory, Vol.XVIII, No.2, 1979; again, for an idea of cultural history devoid of the notion of power, see 3amard Fontana, "American Indian Oral History : An Anthropologist's Note", History and Theory, Vol.VIII, No.3, 1969; Lucy Maynard Salmon, Why is History Rewritten? (New York : O.U.P., 1929), Chap.XI. 28. Peter Stearns, "Coming of Age", Journal of Social History, Vol.X, No.2, Fall 1976, p 198.

32 Company's Fifth Report, the historian in Bengal had to assume sufficient courage in posing the question, is politics the backbone of our histiry? We have shown through a brief discussion on Tagore's views how the Indian historian smarting -under colonial domination had to engage in attempts at writing social history in face of colonial political historiography. Cultural and social historiography in this case was a direct political answer to a historiography marked by colonial arrogance. The idea was, as if, the nationalist Indologist was confronting colonial power with the question, "so what :, if you have political history, we have culture i your account of politics is matched by our account of society 29 and culture". Here even the story of cultural history writing became a story of power. Our historiography became a narrative. And our historians used the narrative mode effectively in countering the political historiography of 30 colonial authors. With these introductory remarks on various ideas on historiography and also the treatment in some of the historiographical researches in India, we begin tracing the development of Indological historiographical researches in India, 29. In a crucial posure, the question cf power in culture remains again neglected; see, Jacques Le Goft, "Is Politics still the Backbone of History?", Daedalus, Vo 1.100, No.1, Winter See, W.H. Dray, "On the Nature and Role of Narrative in Historiography", History and Theory, Vol.IX, No.2, 1971.

33 30C we begin tracing the development of Indological historio~ graphy in Bengali language in accordance with the structural logic of our account. We now pass on to the early years of Bengali historiography - the beginning of the Indological project in indigenous terms.