India in Europe's Orwellian Past  

History as Europe's Peculiar Gift

Johann Gottfried Herder (1744-1803), a German theorist credited with the insights that led to the birth of Anthropology, asserted that Europeans were the only people with a sense of history. He saw societies in China, India and the Americas as experiencing change but not possessed of the capacity to perceive it as cumulative development; their past was thus not history in the European sense. Other Europeans readily accepted that concept, for they were in a period when theories of inherent European superiority were popular in explaining the region's growing global dominance. As with so many ideas of that time of ferment, credit for Europe's sense of history was given to ancient Greece, and specifically to one man born in  Halicarnassus, now in Turkey.

Ancient Greece: Europe came to acknowledge Herodotus of Halicarnassus (484 to 425 BCE) as the “Father of History” because he had written a chatty account of how Greece and Persia became enemies. It wasn't exactly history as we know it now, for he tended to drift into interesting yarns about things like the dog-size ants that dug up gold in India; but he did explain why Persia and Greece got to fighting. (If he is to be believed, it all began with the kidnapping of a woman.) A younger contemporary,  the Athenian statesman and admiral Thucydides (460 to 400 BCE), got credit for being the first to separate history from religion; in writing of the Peloponnesian War, he did not refer to the gods as active participants.

The “historiography” that Europeans eventually developed from those roots involved a “science of history” dealing with the use of evidentiary sources, and a “philosophy of history” exploring its nature and aims. The European mainstream moved towards the belief that the “real past” was unknowable because knowledge of it was inescapably limited: all an individual historian could do was to make an honest assessment of the evidence available, and leave overall truths about the past to emerge over time.

The widely influential Oxford Professor R. G. Collingwood put history at a yet farther remove from reality with the argument, in his posthumous 1946 book The Idea of History, that the dead past and the living present were separate in Nature, and were brought together only in the "historical imagination." At one point in his disquisition, he wrote, “The historian cannot have certain knowledge of what the past was in its actuality and completeness … The past in its actuality and completeness is nothing to him; and as it has finished happening, it is nothing in itself; so his ignorance of it is no loss.”

History as Class: A subset of thinkers, most prominently Karl Marx (1818-1883), conceived an even narrower frame for the study of the past, defining history as the changing of class relationships brought on by progress in the means of production. Marx saw history as movement from the “primitive communism” of tribal society to the elite rule of feudal landowners and then to bourgeois capitalism, socialist revolution, and finally advanced communism conceived as a workering class utopia. Thus, while mainstream European historians groped around in the past like blind men examining an elephant, each declaring his or her own perception, and every generation creating revisionist palimpsests, Marxists developed a firmly deterministic sense of the historical process. In reality, both Marxist and mainstream European historians tended to be obedient not to their declared principles but to the prevailing power structure of their societies; the main difference between them was in the nature of that control.

Europeans on Indian History
While Europe was evolving its peculiar historiographies, there developed among its intellectual elite an affected sense of superiority towards India that reflected the prejudices of Christian missionaries and the gossip of traders. John Locke (1632-1704) was typical, dismissing India’s rich philosophical tradition (in his Essay Concerning Human Understanding), with a passing reference to “the poor Indian philosopher” who believed the world was held up by an elephant, and when asked what supported the elephant, said it was a turtle which stood on something he knew not what. Locke's lofty attitude disguised the rampant purloining of Indian philosophical concepts and theft of its mathematics. See Crest of the Peacock: Non-European Roots of Mathematics​ by George Gheverchese Joseph.

James Mill: The East India Company, which was engaged in the theft of far more than ideas, took the extraordinary step of commissioning and publishing a History of British India by James Mill (1773-1836). Mill was a London journalist who had never been out of Europe and knew nothing of India, but the Company fed him stuff from missionaries, assorted travellers and its own officials in the country, from which he concocted six scurrilous volumes that trashed Indian history as a “monstrous and absurd” concoction of legends and myths. In fact, said he, Indian society “presented a very uniform appearance during the long interval from the visit of the Greeks [under Alexander] to that of the English.” Their “annals … from that era until the period of the Mohomedan conquests, are a blank.” 

Mill believed that the “meritorious researches of the modern Europeans,” were responsible for what we know about the Indian past: “We cannot describe the lives of their kings, or the circumstances and results of a train of battles. But we can show how they lived together as members of the community, and of families; how they were arranged in society; what arts they practiced, what tenets they believed, what manners they displayed; under what species of government they existed; and what character, as human beings, they possessed.”

He endorsed the view that the “sudden, violent, and unprepared revolutions incident to barbarians,” were “so much guided by caprice, and terminate so often in cruelty, that they disgust us by the uniformity of their appearance, and it is rather fortunate for letters that they are buried in silence and oblivion.”  In that respect, there was “perhaps but little to regret in the total absence of Hindu records.”

The book was a great success and its ignorance came to be the default view of well-read Europeans. To understand why the East India Company wanted that outcome we have to step back and look at what happened in the first decades after it conducted a coup in 1757 against Suraj ud Dowlah, the teenage Sultan of Bengal. The Company took over the job of Mughal tax collector from the Sultan and proceeded to raise ruinous levies on what was then the richest province of Mughal India.

Edmund Burke speaking in the British parliament to impeach Warren Hastings of high crimes in India noted how his tax collectors operated in Bengal. “Virgins whose fathers kept them from the sight of the sun were dragged into the public Court [and there] vainly invoking its justice, while their shrieks were mingled with the cries and groans of an indignant people, those virgins were cruelly violated. … It did not end there. The wives of the people of the country only differed in this; that they lost their honor in the bottom of the most cruel dungeons … they were dragged out naked and exposed to the public view, and scourged before all the people …  they put the nipples of the women in the sharp edges of split bamboos and tore them from their bodies.”

Such fierce exactions destroyed the economy of Bengal and pushed it into the first of the great “man-made famines” the British brought to India. In the first decade of their rule some 7 million people starved to death, fully a third of the population. (By the time British rule ended, the all-India toll would stand, by conservative estimate, near two hundred million.)

When even the most draconian measures could not squeeze any more out of Bengal’s private holdings, the East India Company turned its attentions to the wealth locked up in temple and mosque endowments, the revenues from which supported village schools and vaids (healers), and maintained roads, tanks and dams. Unable to decipher the Sanskrit and Persian endowment records, and not trusting local translators, the Company assembled in Calcutta during the last quarter of the 18th century a small group of linguists: the first Orientalists

The Orientalists
The Orientalists uncovered much wealth for the Company, the taxing of which soon undermined the entire structure of traditional civic arrangements in Bengal and set off the great famine. But as people were dying by the millions, the Orientalists were translating the works that made them famous: the Vedas and the Upanishads, the Ramayana and Mahabharatha, the Bhagavad Gita and the teachings of the Buddha. They translated much poetry and the play Sakuntala, sparking the Romantic Period of European literature. They uncovered a tradition of mathematics and astronomy a thousand years before Copernicus and Newton (from which both men likely “borrowed”). They discovered fables that fathered those of Aesop; treatises on love, architecture, horses, elephants; books of fortune telling and prophecy, chants and magic.

William Jones: The most eminent of the Orientalists, William Jones, a Welsh polymath proficient in scores of languages, also arrived at a startling conclusion: Sanskrit belonged to the same family of languages as Latin and Greek. In 1786, he delivered a lecture in Calcutta declaring the existence of an ancient Indo-European language family in which Sanskrit held pride of place. “The Sanskrit language, whatever be its antiquity, is of a wonderful structure; more perfect than the Greek, more copious than the Latin, and more exquisitely refined than either, yet bearing to both of them a stronger affinity, both in the roots of verbs and the forms of grammar, than could possibly have been produced by accident; so strong indeed, that no philologer (sic) could examine them all three, without believing them to have sprung from some common source, which, perhaps, no longer exists.”

Other Europeans before Jones had noted the similarities between Sanskrit and their own languages, but no one had thought to question the concept of instant Babel contained in the Bible, which was then still considered authoritatively factual. The idea of a family of languages that had evolved from a common source was revolutionary. In an effort to fit his theory into the Biblical narrative, Jones in his 1791 address to The Asiatic Society placed it in the context of the story of Noah. “The only human family after the flood established themselves in the northern parts of Iran. … as they multiplied they were divided into three distinct branches, each retaining little at first and losing the whole by degrees, of their common primary language.”

One branch of the family had spread north in “scattered shoots” across Europe and Asia to the oceans at Eastern and Western extremes, and “at length, in the infancy of navigation, beyond them both.” That branch of the family “cultivated no liberal arts, and had no use of letters, but formed a variety of dialects as their tribes were variously ramified.” Another branch (the “children of Ham”) meanwhile, founded in Iran itself the “monarchy of the first Chaldeans, invented letters, observed and named the luminaries of the firmament, calculated the known Indian period of 432 thousand years,” and “contrived the old system of mythology” that was partly allegorical, partly the veneration of their great leaders and lawgivers. At different times colonies from that branch spread to Scandinavia and Greece, Italy, India, Egypt and Ethiopia, to China and across the Pacific to Mexico and Peru. The third branch of the family (the “children of Shem”), peopled Arabia.”

Voltaire: As the intelligentsia of Europe marveled at these discoveries and flowered under their influence in a new “Oriental Renaissance,” Voltaire (François-Marie Arouet, 1694–1778), the most influential of the French philosophes, declared India the foremost of civilizations. “Is it not probable that the Brahmins were the first legislators of the earth, the first philosophers, the first theologians?” he wrote. “Do not the few monuments of ancient history which remain to us form a great presumption in their favor, since the first Greek philosophers went to them to learn mathematics, and since the most ancient curiosities collected by the emperors of China are all Indian?” 

Such vocal appreciation of Indian pre-eminence did not sit well with two powerful constituencies in Britain with a strong vested interest in maintaining the fiction that Britain had a civilizing mission in the country. One was the powerful group that profited from the East India Company (including the Crown): the other was missionaries. A backlash was inevitable, and it came first from evangelical leader William Wilberforce.

William Wilberforce: In a parliamentary debate he initiated in June 1813, Wilberforce represented Indians as desperately in need of moral, spiritual and cultural succor. Citing authorities from Tamerlane to Company bureaucrats, he depicted Indians as intellectually “totally uncultivated,” possessed only of a “low cunning which so generally accompanies depravity of heart.” They were indolent, “grossly sensual, cruel, cowardly, insolent and abject,” and “without a sense of religion.” They had “all the vices of savage life without any of its virtues.” They were habitual liars whose religion was mere superstition, with rituals both degraded and debauched: 100,000 of them committed religious suicide at the annual festival of “Juggernaut” (Jagannath) at Puri, and 10,000 widows immolated themselves every year on the funeral pyres of their husbands. Three years later, Mill's book was on sale throughout Europe. India's image was never the same in Europe after that double assault.  

G.W.F.Hegel: Even observers with a high regard for India saw it as having no history. The German philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831) declared in his History of Philosophy how surprising it was that “a land so rich in intellectual products, and those of the profoundest order of thought, has no History.” India, he said, “has not only ancient books relating to religion, and splendid poetical productions, but also ancient codes; the existence of which latter kind of literature has been mentioned as a condition necessary to the origination of History – and yet History itself is not found.”  

Asiatic Mode of Production: Marx explained that lack of history in terms of what he called the “Asiatic mode of production.” Toiling away in the library of the British Museum, never having set foot anywhere in Asia, he pontificated on the “unchangeableness of Asiatic societies” brought on by the “simplicity” of the village economy. Except for the tithe paid to the larger structure of the state, villages consumed what they produced, and were not involved in the exchange of commodities; they remained “untouched by the storm-clouds of the political sky.”

Indian society, Marx declared, “has no history at all, at least no known history. What we call its history is but the history of successive intruders on the passive basis of that unresisting and unchanging society.” D. D. Kosambi (1907-1966), the avowedly Marxist Indian historian, pointed out how wrong that assessment was: “the greatest periods of Indian history, the Mauryan, the Satavahana Gupta, owed nothing to intruders” yet marked “the formation and spread of the basic village society or the development of new trade centers.” He did not point out that Indian traders had supplied ancient Greece and Rome with the spices that made unrefrigerated meat palatable, that Japan and Scotland have temples to Rama and Shiva, that the Arabs got their Algebra from India and that the Indian Zero revolutionized mathematics globally.

Kosambi did question Marx’s explanation that a lack of historical sense arose from the “Asiatic mode of production,” noting China’s “great annals, court and family records, inscriptions, coins,” and archeological excavations that provided a chronology “virtually undisputed from 841 BCE down.” Most Marxist historians have not let such facts get in the way of the Master’s theory, and India became in their view the archetype of the “timeless East.”

Brainwashed Indian Historians
Many Indian historians internalized the European view of India. The dada of colonial era Indian historians, R.C. Majumdar (1888-1980), even went to the extent of declaring the lack of historical sense one “of the gravest defects of Indian culture.” In Ancient India he wrote that the “the aversion of Indians to writing history” defied “rational explanation.” Indians “applied themselves to all conceivable branches of literature and excelled in many of them, but they never seriously took to the writing of history, with the result that for a great deal of our knowledge of ancient Indian history we are indebted to foreigners.”

That assessment of Indian shortcomings reflected the British claim that they had brought the Indian past into the light of history. Indian historians also generally accepted James Mill’s classification of their country’s past into Hindu, Muslim and British periods. (They seem not to have noticed that Mill’s decision to call the colonial era “British” rather than “Christian” highlighted the absurdity of religious labels on the complexity of India.)

The baroque British theory that a race of White “Aryans” invaded the country, bringing Vedic civilization with them, further mangled the conception of the “Hindu period.” With that theory, Europeans laid claim to the origins of Indian civilization, and as the “Aryans” were supposedly proto-Brahmins, it gave a racist spin to the caste system. Those who glibly gave voice to the "Aryan invasion" theory seem never to have actually visualized what it involved: the invaders would have had to drive their horse-drawn chariots and cattle up and down steep Himalayan passes while also composing and memorizing the Vedas and fighting the "Dravidian" Dasyus.

Indian historians have not responded coherently to these absurdities. The best of them – K.M. Pannikar (1895-1963) for one, in Asia and Western Dominance (1959) – have presented Indian perspectives without subjecting Europe’s deeply flawed and dishonest historiography to a critical review.   

D. D. Kosambi:   In the absence of an alternative conceptualization, all Indian historians have worked within the main European framework or its narrower Marxist subset. Kosambi, for instance, declared on the first page of his much reprinted An Introduction to the Study of Indian History (1956), that he saw his task to be “the presentation, in chronological order, of successive developments in the means and relations of production.”

That formulation was necessary, he said, because India lacked the historical source material available in Europe. He echoed Hegel: “India, for all its great literary heritage has produced no historical writers comparable to Herodotus, Thucydides, Polibius, Livy, Tacitus. Many Indian kings of the middle ages (e.g. Harsa, circa 600-640) were incomparably superior in their education and literary ability to contemporary rulers in Europe; they had personally led great armies to victory in heavy warfare. Nevertheless, not one seems to have thought of composing a narrative like Caesar’s Commentaries or Xenophon’s Anabasis. The tradition was of graceful court drama, an occasional hymn in praise of the gods, or a witty epigram.”

Amazingly, all those who have echoed such views seem to have missed the obvious reason why Indians did not write “history” in the European sense. In Europe, the individual life has always been a singular one-act drama on the vast dark stage of eternity; those who achieved something of note wanted, like Shelley's Ozymandias to leave a record of it. In India, where the individual soul is seen to journey endlessly through successive lives, it makes no sense to leave a memorial to any one. Indian historians raised in the intellectual prison of colonialism have not seen the need to formulate a historiography suitable to the ethos of their own civilization.   

Archeology: In elucidating India’s lack of appropriate historical source-material Kosambi wrote that in Europe the written record was “powerfully supplemented by archaeology;” the spade had substantiated even the Homeric account of Troy, once dismissed as pure myth. In contrast, the “desultory” archeology of India had made “numerous epigraphic finds” without being able “either to restore a reasonably comprehensive dynastic list or to define the regnal years and complete territorial holdings of those Indian kings whose names survive.” He noted that although the Bible was a religious work, it had “far greater historical and archaeological value than any similar Indian book, because the people who transmitted it had continuous contact with the site and were used to describing places and events with a trader’s accuracy.” In India, it was “still impossible to say where the great theme battles of the two epics Ramayana and Mahabharata were fought, let alone when – if indeed they represent any historical event at all.” He made no concession to the Indian time frame several times longer than the Biblical, or the disabling interference of colonial rule.

Kosambi's dismissive attitude towards the Indian epics has been characteristic of all Indian historians working within the Western framework. The most brainwashed among them, Ram Sharan Sharma, even declared that his examination of “inscriptions and sculptural pieces found in Mathura dating back to 200 BCE and 300 AD,” require that “ideas of an epic age based on the Ramayana and Mahabharata have to be discarded.” He has also questioned if Rama and Krishna had any basis in reality.

Such lack of respect for the central realities of Indian existence is the reason why our historians have applauded the sophisticated art of deductive archeology developed by Europeans to piece together complex stories from mute stone and shard, but have rejected as “historical material” the world’s oldest and most continuous oral and written tradition. Ironically, many of them accepted the European concept of the mythical “Aryan race” extracted from the same oral and written record.

The outraged response to all this from Hindus who take their faith seriously drives the modern Hindutva movement, and that has set off a catfight on the nature and meaning of Indian history. As the Hindu reaction has been captured by an illiberal political element originally fostered by the British as a foil to inclusive Indian nationalism, it has resulted in more heat than light; and under attack, the “Left” historians have entrenched their position and become actively anti-Hindu.           

Romila Thapar
   Perhaps nothing better reflects the prevailing situation than the work of Romila Thapar, the doyenne of Left historians who authored A History of India in 1966 and reissued it in a thoroughly revised and enlarged edition in 2004. The two versions offer a fascinating contrast in their treatment of Hinduism.

The Pelican Original of 1966 had this to say about Hinduism on page 132 of Chapter 6: “Brahminism did not remain unchanged through all these centuries, nor was it impervious to the effects of Buddhism and Jainism. Some of the Vedic gods had quietly passed into oblivion and some were being reborn as new gods with additional attributes. This was the time when the Brahminical religion assumed features which today are recognized as Hinduism.

"To call it Hinduism at this stage is perhaps an anachronism, since the term was given currency by the Arabs in the eight century A.D, when referring to those who followed the prevailing religion of India, the worship of Shiva and Vishnu. But for the sake of convenience the religion may be described as Hinduism from this point onwards. Hinduism was not founded by a historical personage as a result of a revelation; it is not a revealed religion but grew and evolved from a variety of cults and beliefs, of which some had their foundations in Vedic religion, and others were popular cults which became associated with the more sophisticated religion, a concession which the priests had to make to popular worship.

"The successful attack of the ‘heretical sects’ on Vedic sacrifices and gods strengthened the trend of monotheistic thinking in Brahminical teaching, which trend had originated in the philosophy of the Upanishads with the concept of the Absolute or the Universal Soul.”

In the much expanded 2004 edition, the topic of Hinduism was moved up to page 3 of Chapter 1, and Thapar expressed a completely different view.

“In the course of investigating what came to be called Hinduism, together with various aspects of its belief, ritual and custom, many [British Orientalists] were baffled by a religion that was altogether different from their own. It was not monotheistic, there was no historical founder, or single sacred text, or dogma or ecclesiastical organization — and it was closely tied to caste. There was therefore an overriding need to fit it into the known moulds of familiar religions, so as to make it more accessible. Some scholars have suggested that Hinduism as it is formulated and perceived today, very differently from earlier times, was largely born out of this reformulation.”

The British “reformulation,” Thapar explained, “influenced the emerging Indian middle class in its understanding of its own past. … It was believed that the Indian pattern of life was so concerned with metaphysics and the subtleties of religious belief that little attention was given to the more tangible aspects.” That was “the genesis of the idea of the spiritual east,” a theme “firmly endorsed by a section of Indian opinion during the last hundred years” because it “was a consolation to the Indian intelligentsia for its perceived inability to counter the technical superiority of the West …. At the height of anti-colonial nationalism it acted as a salve for having been made a colony of Britain.”

​Thapar did not explain her dramatic shift in assessing the nature and history of Hinduism, but it is not difficult to see a polemical motive: her new view clearly intended to pull the rug out from under her vociferous Hindutva critics. But she has tried to make amends with her book The Past Before Us, which responds to my criticism of her stance on the Delhi University controversy over the teaching of an essay about the Ramayana. See here, here and here. (In the process, she pirated my overall concept of Indian history, even paraphrasing the title of one of my blog posts, The Future of the Past.)

Catering to European Prejudices
The view of Hinduism as a chaotic conglomeration of beliefs without an organizing framework is neither new nor unique to “Left” historians. It has long been part of the arsenal of Christian missionaries and all variety of other propagandists.

In 2004, (the same year that Thapar’s revised book appeared), Pankaj Mishra, an Indian writer who has made a career of catering to Western prejudices, proclaimed, “there was no such thing as Hinduism before the British invented the hold-all category in the early nineteenth century.” In his view, that “made India seem the home of a ‘world religion’ as organized and theologically coherent as Christianity and Islam.” (That opinion reveals just how little Mishra knows what he is writing about!)

In 2005 British academic Brian Pennington expanded on that thesis in more scholarly fashion in Was Hinduism Invented? Briton, Indian and the Colonial Construction of Religion. Other than favorable reviews in a few small Catholic publications and predictable fulminations on the Internet from the Hindutva brigade there has not been much of a response to these disreputable excursions; a key-word Internet search found only a single Indian review of Pennington’s book, a laudatory note by a member of the faculty at Delhi’s Jawaharlal Nehru University! Judging from that sadly inexpert comment and the generally terrible quality of book reviews in the Indian Press, it is probably safe to say that Indian readers haven't the faintest idea of what Mishra and Pennington have written about. 

All the foregoing indicates the need for an Indian perspective of the European intellectual world that will bring into focus its pirate history and dependence on spear-carriers like Romila Thapar, R.C. Majumdar and Pankaj Mishra to dish the home team. 

Impeachment of Warren Hastings

After a seven-year proceeding in the British parliament the effort to impeach Warren Hastings failed.  

The "Aryans" were supposed to be a fair, blond European race that invaded India in prehistoric times, driving their cattle and chariots over the Himalayas, all the while composing the Vedas on the side. It was meant to legitimize British rule. It didn't work.

Voltaire (François-Marie Arouet)

French philosopher's admiration of India set off a British effort to defame it.

D.D. Kosambi

Indian Marxist historian challenged Marx's idea of unchanging India.

Johann Gottfried Herder

Thought that only Europeans had a sense of history.  

My critique of Romilla Thapar was first published in blog posts in 2011 and 2014: here and hereThis is the context in which I am most concerned about the Memory Hole.

G.W.F. Hegel

Admired India but found its lack of history mystifying.


An Orwellian development in recent scholarship has been the changing of text in published works. I discovered this first in Jon Meacham's 2003 book ​Franklin and Winson. Lines I had quoted from it in 2008 about the Cairo and Tehran Conferences during the Second World War had been changed by 2018 to completely change the significance of what happened. Since then I have come across several other examples of such changes. Some are noted midway through the rather long article here. I insert this caution here because the article below is filled with quotations, and the originals might have been changed in the best traditions of the "Memory Hole" in George Orwell's novel 1984. 

William Wilberforce

Evangelical leader, led the attack on Indian civilization 

Valmiki's Ramayana

Indian historians have not mined India's rich puranas as sources of history seemingly out of sheer laziness. The Ramayana celebrated Ram Rajya, the ideal kingdom, as India moved from caste federations to unitary state. Several millennia later, the Mahabharata marked a darker passage of imperial power struggles. It contains the Bhagavad Gita, a guide to moral behavior during the Kali Yuga, the most evil of times. 

James Mill

Authored an enormously ignorant history of India as the East India Company's propaganda. 

Karl Marx

German theorist saw himself as a latter day Moses leading the way to the Promised Land of Communism.

William Jones

The greatest of the "orientalists" was the Welsh polymath William  Jones, perhaps the only colonial figure remembered fondly in India. His legacy was officially  celebrated by India on the 200th anniversary of his death in Calcutta in 1794.   

Herodotus of Halicarnassus

Ancient Greek raconteur, became Europe's "Father of History"


Romila Thapar

Widely considered an eminent Indian historian, she has in recent years exhibited an astonishing lack of scholarly ethics