Orientalist view of Indian history: This began principally because the East India Company required that its

officers, in order to administer properly the territories which it had acquired, become familiar with the laws, habits and history of the people they were governing. This led to the founding of the Asiatic Society in !"#. $or the %rientalists, the most significant discovery was that of the relationship between Sans&rit and certain European languages, which led to subsequent wor&s on the common Indo'European heritage. The ancient Indian past was seen almost as a lost wing of early European culture, and the Aryans of India were regarded as the nearest intellectual relatives of the Europeans. The purity of Sans&rit as a language was emphasised, and a distinction was made between the spea&ers of Aryan and non'Aryan languages in the sub'continent. The %rientalists saw Indian past as an unchanging society where the village community was the idyllic centre of Indian life and was, in fact, the natural bac&ground for the qualities of gentleness, passivity, truthfulness and otherworldliness qualities. ()ot the active, combative and acquisitive, but the passive, meditative and reflective.* The reason might have been disillusionment with the Industrial +evolution sweeping Europe at the time. There was very little critical, analytical and conte,tual study of the Sans&rit te,ts. -any of the contemporary ideological pre.udices of the pandits were incorporated into what was believed to the interpretation of the ancient tradition. An effect was that translations of Indian literature and philosophical wor&s became popular with intellectuals in Europe and America. Utilitarian conception of Indian history: /ames -ill wrote (The History of British India*, dividing Indian history into three ma.or sections0 1indu civilisation, -uslim civilisation and the 2ritish period. -ill was a utilitarian for whom the principal value of a culture was the degree to which it contributed to the furtherance of rationalism and individualism. 1e saw neither of these two values in 1indu civilisation, and therefore condemned it severely. Indian society was unchanging, and ruled over by despotic and tyrannical rulers. 1e thought that legislation could change India into a progressive and dynamic society. -ill3s wor& became the standard te,t on Indian history. Imperialist view of Indian history: Studies by 2ritish officials into Indian history began after the +evolt of "4!, as they felt they needed to &now more about Indian religion, manners, customs and history. The 5estern scholars reached two important conclusions about Indian history0 6 That India was a nation of philosophers, and Indian intellect was lac&ing in political or material speculation 7otherworldliness6. 86 That Indians never &new the feeling of nationality. %ther conclusions that were drawn were0 ' %riental governance was necessarily despotic and autocratic in nature. ' India never attained the idea either of a state or of the fatherland, and that it could not evolve any political constitution, even in conception. The dangerous consequences of such beliefs were0 ' It was harmful for Indian calls for self'government. If Indians were essentially philosophers, absorbed in the problems of the spiritual world, it followed that their material world should be managed for them by their imperialist masters. ' If Indians were accustomed to autocratic rule, and never had any idea of nationhood, state or self'government, it was in &eeping with their tradition that they should be ruled autocratically by the 2ritish 9overnor'9eneral and :iceroy. ;israeli < (The East is a career.* Critique < 6 Sources are very good < but they have completely negated important points in the sources < historically selective < show only one perspective < e.g. "4! < do not tal& about 1indu'-uslim unity < =isan movement etc. Nationalist view of Indian history: Such perceptions by the Imperialists led to the formation of a new school of thought, the nationalist school of historians. 2y their researches into the manifold aspects of the past history of their country they tried to build a powerful case for the political and social progress of the country in their own times. The scope of the wor& of the nationalist historians was chiefly determined by the ongoing national movement. Thus, when the Indian nationalists were trying to curtail the powers of the autocratic :iceroy by introducing a popular element at the Centre and in the >rovincial 9overnments, +.C. ;utt wrote an article in which he tried to show that in ancient times the &ing did .ustice to all. Cur?on3s >artition of 2engal and attac&s on the oriental character prompted research which attempted to show that it was a mista&e to suppose that the 1indus were accustomed to an autocratic form of government, and that the popular element never e,isted as a distinct force in the country.

@ater, when the )ationalist movement entered its e,tremist phase, A1indu revivalism3 came into being. The )ationalist movement reached its pea& in the years between B C and B84. A number or articles and monographs on ancient Indian polity were written. >.). 2aner.ea pointed out that the ancient system of government was very li&e a Aconstitutional monarchy.3 +.C. -a.umdar tried to show that Areligion did not engross the whole or even an undue proportion of public attention.3 A large number of these wor&s were purely in response to the claims of the Imperialist historians. D.). 9hoshal refuted -uller3s view that because of certain inherent tendencies in their character, Indians could not conceive of the idea of the state, and that there was no provision for the interest of the state in their scheme. ;.+. 2handar&ar attac&ed the claim that the Indians were not aware of the concept of nationality. +.=. -oo&er.i tried to modify the opinion that in ancient India there was nothing of the nature of a political institution between the village and the central government. Tal&ed about the State. The merits of the nationalist movement can be enumerated as follows0 6 2y presenting an encouraging picture of the pat, it filled the people with great self'confidence. The &nowledge of ancient polity gave tongue to those who advocated self'government and independence for India. 86 This ideology produced splendid research wor&s and certain inferences regarding the prevalence of limited monarchy, republics, local self'government and international law in ancient India came to be accepted by nearly all scholars. E6 +esearch yielded priceless old manuscripts li&e =autilya3s Arthashastra. The limitations of the nationalist method can be enumerated as follows0 6 5hile it served to rouse the educated middle class against alien rule, it hardly appealed to conscious intellectuals interested in the masses of peasants and wor&ers who were being drawn into the national struggle from B8F onwards. 86 2y a fulsome adoration of ancient 1indu institutions it tended to antagonise -uslims. -oreover, -ughals treated as outsiders. E6 It gave us a false sense of past values, glossing over the fact that, whether it was monarchy or republic, the two upper varnas dominated the lower varnas, who were e,cluded from political life. #6 It ignored the largely religious aspect of Indian polity, trying too hard to give it a secular appearance. 46 In its cra?e for proving the superiority of out ancient institutions over those of the ancient 5est, it hardly tried to e,amine them in the light of the evolution of primitive tribes as &nown from anthropology or in the light of the early institutions of other Indo'European peoples. C6 >roblematic < 9upta era as the golden age < ignored caste system, sub.ugation of women etc. !6 Accepted the Aryan invasion of theory < South India. Imperialists and )ationalists < primarily but not exclusively te,tual. >rimarily Sans&rit < not >ali, oral literature etc. )ationalists and Imperialists more flowery. Imperialists < trying to legitimise there rule < refer to Indians in disparaging terms < nationalists will do the e,act opposite. -ar,ists < scientific evidence, weighing of evidence. >ali, >ra&rit. Imperialists < primarily to .ustify 2ritish rule < determinism. >olitical and administrative history. Touched upon lives of people only to show how bad the situation was and how the 2rits were needed. )ever really recognised colonialism in India. -ar,ists < +ecognises the overall movement in India against the 2ritish. Also accounts for the class contradictions. Economics. 1ow the war effected the economics. 1ow the economics affected the political scenario. ;ifferent viewpoints. )o debates in the ImperialistG)ationalist school. Criticisms < middle class control. E.g. "4!. @oo& at history from the economic perspective. ;on3t recognise something which has an all class unity < e.g. Huit India -ovement.