Revisiting Ancient India
History should not just be a record of the rise and fall of kings but should embrace in
its ambit the political, social and religious attainments and aspirations of the people at
large, argue a section of intellectuals and historians keeping in view the ongoing debates on
the course of historical writing across time and space. Numerous discourses and points of
view were generated on the reliability and authenticity of sources; and their interpretations
were recorded in the corpus of literature on Ancient Indian History and Culture. The current
issue, besides making an attempt to arrive at a balanced opinion on the provoking issues
related to the Indus Valley Civilization and Aryan presence in India, also focuses on the realm
of historiography through the paper on Kalhana and his Rajatarangini. This special issue also deals with controversies surrounding events like the cannon firing on the Delhi Iron
Pillar. The first paper looks at the interrelationships among the Harappans, the Indo-Aryans
and other cultures, and proposes an integrated framework to study the whole period
spanning Ancient Indian history—from the Indus Valley Civilization (IVC) to the Buddha era. To
the best of the author's knowledge, this is something no one has tried before. This
novel approach of looking at an age-old problem, if accepted by mainstream academicians,
may have implications on various aspects of the studies done on Ancient India.
The Aryan debate is commonly seen as a perturbing issue and has been the subject
of many heated debates ever since the notion of Aryan migration was first proposed in
the 19th century. Sujay Rao
Mandavilli deals with the subject in a new fashion in the paper
titled, "Syncretism and Acculturation in Ancient India: A New Nine Phase Acculturation
Model Explaining the Process of Transfer of Power from the Harappans to the Indo-Aryans". He proposes a replacement for the oversimplified Aryan Migration Theory (AMT) and
other `acculturation models', which are a part of a much wider spectrum of contention and
debate among scholars, nationalists and laymen who used these as tools for understanding
Ancient India and reconstructing its history. This paper takes the AMT (1500 BC) as a base and
works backwards to arrive at a fresh set of conclusions. The author does not toe any political
or ideological line blindly but attempts to scrutinize thoroughly, ostensibly
diametrically opposed and mutually exclusive views; he tries to weed out implausible and
improbable views and bring reasonable viewpoints into a coherent and cogent framework. In doing
so, he rejects the Vedic Indus theory and the Autochthonous Aryan theory, and instead
proposes a new nine-phase acculturation model between the Harappans and the Indo-Aryans.
This, when properly studied, would provide a framework with which much of Ancient
India can be rationally investigated, analyzed and understood. This paper also proposes
a paradigm for dating much of Sanskrit literature, analyzing various elements of
Indian culture and studying post-Harappan India. It also argues the need to delink ethnicity,
spoken language, written language, and cultural elements while studying the identity of Harappans.
Assuming that a proper evaluation of historiography in revisiting ancient India has
a unique significance, this issue includes a paper on the Rajatarangini, (River of Kings) by Kalhana, acclaimed as earliest known historian of ancient India. Best known as
the `Chronicle' written in Kavya (poetic) style about the Kashmiri kings, the Rajatarangini, has raised questions among scholars on the importance of Kalhana in the annals
of historiography. Rattan Lal Hangloo discusses various hidden facets of Kalhana in his
paper, "Situating Kalhana and his Chronicle Rajatarangini".
The Delhi Iron Pillar is an important historical monument of ancient India; it is
visual proof to ancient India's exalted status in metallurgy. In the paper titled, "On History
of Damage Caused to Quwwat-ul-Islam Mosque by Cannon Fire Employed to Break the
Delhi Iron Pillar", R Balasubramaniam addresses an unexplored aspect of the Pillar, namely
the damage caused to the Pillar and the structures of the Quwaat-ul-Islam mosque (where
the Pillar is now located) due to a cannon shot fired specifically for breaking the Pillar
into two. Earlier, there has been just one discussion in the literature, on the possible motive
for breaking the Pillar and why a second cannon shot was not fired from the
well-positioned cannon. In the paper, the author first traces the history of the cannon shot and
attributes it to Nadir Shah, who ransacked Delhi in the year 1739. The paper puts together
a significant event in history (firing of cannon ball on Delhi Iron Pillar) and its effect on
the structures nearby. A brief discussion on the damage caused to the Pillar, and the reason
why it is still stable in spite of the cannon shot is also included.
Many scholars argue to arrive at a widely acceptable paradigm to understand
the relationship between Religion, Law and Power. Historians gave `religion' prominence
in their attempts to understand power conflicts at different times. To deal with religion
and the emergence of power structure in contemporary times requires a sensitivity
and sensibility, which is sadly lacking in most of the works. The review of the book
titled, "Religion, Law and Power: Tales of Time in Eastern India, 1860-2000", by Rila
Mukherjee, mirrors the author's perceptions on the subject with rich documentation of the
mutual penetration of religion and politics in Eastern India by offering insights into crucial issues.
-
Radha Mohan Chebolu
Consulting
Editor |
