The Penguin History of Early India: From the Origins to AD 1300

1950s McCarthy-ism in India? I am not Indian and I have no political agenda. I am a student of Sanskrit and the Sanskrit texts. Even though I am well aware of India's sufferings and very sympathetic to her, I do recommend that you read Romila Thapar for a balance in perspective. In many ways India will always remain an enigma, but as a veritable treasury of superb metaphysics, literature, music, and art, India is in my view unparalleled. The creativity of the Indian people, their sheer capacity for endurance and wisdom is awesome. In my endless search to understand India I came across the lady historian, Romila Thapar. Thapar is highly respected by some and vilified by others. I want to share what I found with those who - like me - might not be aware. Frankly, when I first began reading her `Early India, From the Origins to AD 1300' my feeling was that she was a bit dry, western oriented, and tedious. Where was all the magic and mysticism I had loved in Alain Danielou's `A Brief History of India'? Then thanks to the Internet, I realized that Romila Thapar had made some serious enemies. This led me to further investigate and to learn why such a respected historian would elicit such vehemence. Romila Thapar [born 1931], Professor Emeritus in History at the Jawaharlal Nehru University in New Delhi, does not believe that history should be used as a political weapon and is against what she terms a 'communal interpretation' of Indian history that chooses facts through an extremely selective partisan filter. Again, I am not Indian and have no cultural bias, no political agenda, and no vested interest in Indian politics. Thapar has a way of describing history that is very broad, encompassing many perspectives, more cleanly an overview abstraction, and perhaps beyond many. She accepts that history will never be fact because what has been written is always from a multiplicity of writers who are saying different things. She compares this to the 1950 Japanese film 'Rashoman' that tells the story of a murder from the four witnesses, including the dead. The film reveals how life is experienced so completely and amazingly from our totally different perceptions. We all live in our own holograms. For Thapar there is no linkage between 'belief' and history; and history will never arrive at any absolute truth, but is an attempt to analyze evidence to find what may have occurred. McCarthyism in India After a bit of research I found an illuminating article entitled 'Hating Romila Thapar' from the magazine HIMAL, June 2003. Thapar is described as: "...an historian who is indefatigable in the pursuit of knowledge and prolific in its publication, and who is above all a devoted partisan of the truth..." - Oxford University to Romila Thapar while conferring on her an honorary Doctorate of Letters, 2002. Excerpted from HIMAL: "Thapar's academic work is controversial with the Hindutva lobby because it is grounded in professional methods of historical investigation, rather than in the pet historical theories of Hindu extremists relying on extrapolation from Sanskrit texts. The disagreement may appear academic in nature but the controversy around her appointment speaks to a larger cultural project being advanced under the guise of anti-communism. While it is true that Thapar makes use of some Marxist categories of historiography, unremarkable in itself given the strong Marxist tradition in professional Indian history writing, her opponents' objections are essentially political rather than academic. Thapar's documentation of early Indian life is at odds with Hindutva preference, grounded in a regressive Hindu orthodoxy, of seeing India as a purely Hindu civilisation, the political implications of which for contemporary India being obvious." Excerpt: "The campaign [against Romila Thapar] represents the rebirth of McCarthism... [the] reference to McCarthyism is fitting - the Wisconsin conservative denigrated his political and ideological opponents by drawing on a deep-seated religious suspicion of left-wing ideologies, and advanced a powerful, dangerous cocktail of American nationalism grounded in so-called Christian values and unquestioning support for the nation and its political institutions." Excerpt: "The matrix of political conditions in 1950s America and present-day India (and the outlook of many in the Indian diaspora) is similar. Hindu nationalists, both in India and abroad, are sensitive to India's position in the world and see themselves as fierce defenders of the Indian nation against `dangerous' elements, typically constructed as Muslim and also at times as communist/Marxist. McCarthyism and the anti-Thapar campaign are both built on a populist politics of denunciation, of collecting a supposedly monolithic people against a hostile force. "In 1954, in a move strikingly similar to the history book shenanigans in India today, the US Congress inserted two words into the `Pledge of Allegiance' recited every morning by American schoolchildren - '...one nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all', so that the pledge would differ from similar statements of loyalty in the Soviet Union that express no divine connection. The insertion in the US pledge is mild in comparison to the broader ideological project of Hindutva, but it rests on a similar assumption, that religion can be used to buttress state-inspired formation of identity. Unlike many of McCarthy's targets, Thapar will not fall victim to the ongoing assault. Tragically, though, the ambitious designs of the Hindutva brigade are already being realised in part throughout India." The mechanics of propaganda in the west are better understood by many of us these days - and revealed in the book, "Taking the Risk out of Democracy: Corporate Propaganda versus Freedom and Liberty" by Alex Carey (1996). [available on amazon]. There are some very interesting points of evidence on proganda in Romila Thapar's books. It hasn't only been the Jesuits and their Inquisition, and more recently the manipulative monopoly media, which managed to disempower and bewilder people. Considering propaganda as the tool of political agendas, we may see more clearly what Romila Thapar describes as the place of language and literature in India in the 11th century: "The more extensive use of Sanskrit coincided with educated brahmans seeking employment and migrating to various parts of the subcontinent. Where they were successful they were given employment and a grant of land. ... The Sanskrit section of the grant therefore had a political agenda, publicizing royal authority and legitimizing the titles and status of the king, along with his connections to ancient heroes and earlier rulers. The capturing of history became significant. By appropriating the compositions of the suta or bard - the traditional keepers of history - and editing these in a new format, the authors of the texts could control the use of the past and thereby the status of the rulers. The PURANAS, claiming to record the past, were now authored by brahmans and written in Sanskrit, although there was often a pretense that they were still being recited by the bard who was placed formally in the role of the original composer. The audience for this political agenda was the world of kings and courts." The meaning is clear that these educated brahmans were given employment and land grants in exchange for skewing the written word to support the right of rule and power, which in our time is called propaganda. Thapar is worth reading - while we are still free to do so. Also do watch the BBC Hardtalk India interview with Romila Thapar available on YouTube.

Here is something I've learned about Indian history: It is pretty controversial to write anything about Indian History. There is very little you can actually say or write about Indian history without angering someone who cares very passionately about the subject your are speaking or writing about. Undoubtably, the single biggest factor in aggravating the debate on Indian historical subjects is the "Hindu Nationalism Movement." People in the US who are even aware of this phenomenon typically describe it in political terms, for example, when writing about the actions of the BJP or "Bharatiya Janata Party" but it should surprise no one that Hindu Nationalist ideas extend directly into historical research, writing and debate. Hindu Nationalism inspired ideas take many forms in the discussion of Early Indian History. First, there is the debate, now largely won, by the way, over whether the initial Vedic migration into India was an "invasion" or not. Obviously, Hindu Nationalists would rather have it be said that there was no invasion, and many would further argue that India is the home of ALL Indo European Languages. Well, the good news: No Aryan invasion, more like small scale migration over many years. The bad news: There is no way that the Indo European language family originated in North West India, so call that one a draw. Even finding a "neutral" source on this subject is difficult, but Romila Thapar does a good job of presenting the current historical facts in a non-inflammatory fashion. Another major area of dispute colored by Hindu Nationalism are the pre-Mughal Turkish led raids into Western India, which allegedly resulted in temple destruction and the building of a mosque over said temple location. These disputes have resulted in back and forth terrorist activity as well as the occasional mass killing. Here, Thapar notes that the raids seem not to have bothered the locals at the time, or rather they didn't see it as anything "out of ordinary" and that any later mosque building was done with the consent of the native community, not at the behest of an "outside" Muslim ruler. In addition to the controversial subjects, Thapar does a solid job bringing the reader up to date on current "hot topics" in the field of Early Indian History, like "Did the medieval Indian state formation process constitute a variation of European defined feudalism?" She also does a remarkably thorough job of discussing the caste formation process in ancient India- I confess to say that it's complexity, even at this level of generality, somewhat escaped my comprehension, but the writing is so clear and concise that I will likely revisit her discussion in a few months. All in all this was a solid introduction to the field of Early Indian history- worth a read for someone seeking a foundation in the subject.

As a historian Mrs Thaper is prolific writer. This book is not an exception. She has covered a the whole of Indian history for over 1500 years. A good reference guide for scholars as well as students of history.

If you really want to learn about the history of India, then you'll need to examine the historiography of India, that is, the writing of history. This is where Thapar begins this book, by examining the different schools of thought regarding the history of India. Some think Indian history can be boiled down to the Hindu vs Muslim angle, or the lost Golden Age angle, or the Victorian or Marxist angle. Thapar does not agree. She considers how these different perspectives have shaped the current understanding of Indian history, and then dives into the history itself. Along the way she considers and weighs different perspectives. She isn't limited to the Great Man approach, and does a particularly good job of considering different social layers, as well as the ebb and flow of Hindu/Buddhist/Jaina influence. Her book is not a fast read, and it's not a rousing adventure story, as many good histories are. This is a thoughtful, considered examination of the history of ancient India. If you want knowledge, look here. If you want an adventure, look elsewhere.

Great buy on respected scholarship that arrived in perfect condition. Thank you.

Romila Thapar is a prolific historian of Ancient India, and this sprawling book is her attempt to re-write Indian history through the lens of a modified Marxist perspective, drawing from archaeology and historical sources to shape her narrative. My interest stems mostly from the archaeological perspective. It is disappointing to see Thapar use and misuse archaeological data to fit her narrative. One of her claims is that the identity/location of the vanished Sarasvati River of Rig Veda fame is 'controversial'. Actually it's not controversial at all. Even at the time of writing it had already been identified (for decades) as the present day Ghaggar-Hakra River. Equally dubious is her claim that horses and chariots were mostly unknown during Harrapan times. She states that the clearly identifiable bones of a horse dating from that period are somehow problematic. Clearly identified is not problematic(!) Yet only a few years ago an entire chariot was discovered which blew away the myth that horses and chariots were unknown in Ancient India. I had no firm opinion of Thapar going into this book, though she is highly controversial and negatively regarded by many in India; and there are no shortage of rebuttals to her leftist narrative in general, and specific points of archaeology in particular. Conversely, she is often held in higher esteem abroad. I sense her opponents are not just being 'political' when they highlight her obvious lapses in judgement and blinkered conclusions. This is only a three star ranking from me. Quite apart from her own self-made controversies, her lapidary prose (though packed with information) is lifeless, and often repetitive. For a better authority on Indian archaeology and history, I can recommend the doubly qualified historian & archaeologist NAYANJOT LAHIRI, whose books are totally grounded in the evidence and data, and who is not prone to wilful omissions or making political points. At the very least, Lahiri is an engaging and livelier writer who will not bore you with leaden and repetitive prose.

Great book from an amazing author and academic, a bit of a long read, however I would suggest it to anyone interested in South Asian history.

this is best history book I have read about ancient India. It is written with facts and can be believed.

This is a useful and important overview of India's ancient past. Thapar takes us through some 4000 years of Indian history, from the founding of the Indus Valley civilization to the era prior to the Delhi Sultanate. She presents a more nuanced periodization of Indian history than the usual Hindu-Islamic-British version that most Indians are familiar with. She writes from what I suppose is a "Marxist" perspective, spending considerable time on social and economic processes, class stratification, and agrarian relations (admittedly, I found my eyes glazing over these portions). Her discussions on the symbiotic relationship between the priestly and ruling classes in India are enlightening, though I can see why it might make those of a Hindu nationalist bent uneasy. I was particularly pleased to see South India receive its just share in her narrative. Romila Thapar seems especially anxious to counter the Hindu nationalist vision that is currently prevalent in the country. She takes great pains to portray Indian society as a mixture of both native and foreign cultural streams and to explain how the Islamic attacks were only part of a long series of mutual aggressions by political actors in the region. She makes a well-intentioned attempt to downplay the religious aspect of the Islamic invasions of India toward the beginning of the second millennium AD, but it would behoove us to approach this part of the book with some skepticism. I don't want to comment on what seems to be her political project, but I will note that while Hindu nationalism falls short of being a rational narrative for what our country is, as a pragmatic matter, we do need such a national narrative in order to act coherently as a people. I will be scouting her other books to see whether she has addressed this aspect elsewhere. She clearly has the right credentials for the job and, might I add, the right taste as well.

This is an important book. Unfortunately the Kindle version has no maps and so it is very hard to use.