Historical Elements (Introduction)

R. C. Majumdar says:

“One of the gravest defects of Indian Culture, which defy rational explanation, is the aversion of Indians to writing History. They applied themselves to all conceivable branches of literature and excelled in many of them, but they never seriously took to the writing of History.” Alberuni also says: “The Hindus do not pay much attention to the historical order of things; they are very careless in relating the chronological succession of things, and when they are pressed for information and are at a loss not knowing what to say, they invariably take to tale-telling.”

Historical Sense:

Some writers have gone to the extent of maintaining that the people of ancient India had no historical sense in them.

It is true that the old extreme view is being given up, and it is admitted even by scholars like Dr. Keith that:

“There is a certain amount of writing and a number of facts attesting a degree of sense for history. In view of the antiquity and the developed character of Indian civilization it would indeed be ridiculous to expect to find India destitute of historical sense …….”

However, Dr. Keith still maintains that:

“Despite the abundance of its literature, history is so miserably represented and that in the whole of the great period of Sanskrit literature there is not one writer who can be seriously regarded as a critical historian.”

Dr. Keith has tried to trace this fact to many causes. His view is that India failed to produce historians because the great political events which affected her, did not call fourth popular action in the same sense in which the repulse of the Persian attacks of Greece evoked the history of Herodotus. The foreign attacks on India during the first century before the Christian era were probably not so important as to excite a national feeling among the people. The same could be said about the invasions of Alexander, Greeks, Parthians, Śakas, Kuṣāns and the Huns. This attitude was also due to the Indian attitude that all things were brought about by fate and were wholly unintelligible and beyond all foresight. The Indian mind also accepted the miraculous in the shape of divine intervention, magic and witchcraft. It was also partly due to the tendency of the Indian mind to perfect the general to the particular. No distinction was made between actual facts and hearsay. The order of happening was completely ignored and no attention was paid to chronology (A History of Sanskrit literature, P. 144–147).

However, it is pointed out by Indian scholars that the Indians and possess an historical sense. The large variety of historical treatises and a number of other facts testify to the historical sense among the ancient Hindus. Dr. P. K. Acharya points out that the inscription of King Kharavela of Kaliṅga, Rudradamana, Samudragupta, Harsha of Kanauj, the Chalukyas, the Rashtrakutus, Palas and Senas give a lot of historical information with reliable dates and genealogies. These inscriptions supply genealogies of reignging kings and donors, activities of the rulers and conditions of gifts. They give the history of the architect who constructed the gift, the priest who consecrated it, the poet who composed it and the scribe who engraved the letters. The western Chalukya Kings of Kalyani got from the dynastic archives knowledge of the earlier Chalukya dynasty of Badami. The Silahara princes of Southern Konkan maintained their own records and those of their sovereigns, the Rashtrakutas. The Vansavalis and Rajavalis were compiled and maintained with great care. The introductory passages of the grant by the eastern Chalukyas refer to the names of the successive rulers beginning from the founder of the dynasty. The eastern Ganges of Kaliṅga give in their Vansavalis the details of their kings. A long Vansavali from Nepal gives a continuous list of the rulers of that country with the length of their reigns and the dates of their succession. The Vansavalis from Orissa give a continuous list of the Kings of that province up to the Kali age in 3102 B.C. Not only the lengths of the reigns are given, even the dates of the important events are also given. The Jains have Pattavalis which go back to the death of Vardhamana Mahavira. The Palm-leaf archives of the temple of Jagannatha at Puri contain a lot of definite and reliable data concerning ancient Indian history. The introduction and colophons of literary works as compiled by Paterson and Sir R. G. Bhandarkar contain definite historical material with dates.

Somadeva tells us in definite terms that:

“He finished that work (Vasastilaka) in Chaitra, Saka year 881 (959 A.D.). During the rule of the Chalukya prince, Krishnaraja Deva.” Vikramarjuna 58

Vijaya and Pampa-Bharata of Pampa refers to the name of King Arikesarin and gives his pedigree for the last seven preceding generations. Jalahna mentions the names of the Yadava kings of Devagiri such as Bhillama, Singohana, Krishna, Mallugi etc. It is clear from above that the ancient Hindus did possess an historical sense and consequently a lot of information about the history of ancient India is available.

Tara Chand says that the Sūtas and Magadhas, Vandins or Stavakas preserved genealogies of Kings, Rishis and traditions of great men which were the sources of information for Itihasa and Purāṇa. At the courts of kings, careful records of important happenings were kept and this is attested by inscriptions, Dana-patras, biographical poems and dramas. Hieun Tsang, Kalhana and the existence of an official known as Akashpataladhikritra at the court. (Material and Indiological Factors in Indian History, P. 15).

It has been said beforehand that history is not an imaginary or fictional story, history is the story of the past. And to know the past some evidences are required. From which the source the evidences are found called historical elements. The elements or the sources of, or original authorities for, the early history of India may be arranged in four classes. The first of these is tradition, chiefly as recorded in native literature, the second consists of those writings of foreign travelers and historians which contain observation on Indian subjects, the third is the evidence of archaeology, which may be subdivided into the monumental, the epigraphic, and the numismatic; and the fourth comprises the contemporary, literature which deal expressly with historical subjects.

For the period anterior to Alexander the Great, extending from 600 B.C. to 326 B.C., dependence must be placed almost wholly upon literary tradition communicated through works composed in many different ages, and frequently recorded in scattered incidental notices. The purely Indian traditions are supplemented by the notes of the Greek authors, Ktesis, Herodotus, the historians of Alexander, Megasthenes and others. 59

The Kashmir Chronicle, composed in the twelfth century, which is in from the nearest approach to a work of regular history in extant Sanskrit literature, contains a large body of confused ancient traditions, which can be used only with much caution. It is also of high value as a trustworthy record of local events for the period contemporary with, or slightly preceding, the author’s lifetime.^[1]

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Kalhana Rājatarangini, a Chronicle of the kings of Kashmir, translated with an Introduction, contemporary, an Appendices, by M.A. Stein (Vol.-2-constable, 1900).