Historiography as the Result of Democratisation of History

History, [is] a distillation of rumor”, a concoction diluted by the distortionist propensity of politics. Contemporary efforts in historiography reflect the growing democratization of history as it is propelled from the exclusivity of academia to the untamed depths of the public domain. Compounded by the already vague and multi-faceted nature of the historical discipline, the entwinement of politics and historiography has inexorably undermined the modern historian’s quest for truth and veracity. Thus, it seems that objectivity and non-partisanship are no longer prerequisites for historical discourse as it is now laid victim to the convolution of politics.

Contemporary Indian writing surrounding the Aryan Question has largely been steeped in nationalistic sentiment. Under the guise of revisionism, Hindu nationalists have framed discourse in a manner that serves their political agendas and glorifies ancient Hindu culture by circulating their own unfounded theory in an “apologetic, ultimately religious undertaking”. Such developments have altered the purposes of history and further who composes it, thus making it a topic of contemporary historiographical relevance. As such, the falsehoods purported by Hindu Nationalists reflect the ability of politics to compromise the efficacy of historiography to a significant extent.

Concerned with the origins of the Indo-Aryan peoples, an ascribed ethnolinguistic group that spoke Indo-Aryan languages, the Aryan Question has become increasingly politicized. The Aryan Invasion Theory (AIT, hereafter) is the most primitive, colonial-era theory of the migration models, positing that a Sanskrit-speaking Aryan people entered India around or before 1500 BC and spread its language, religion, and social structure among the indigenous population. The more widely accepted Indo-Aryan Migration Theory (IAMT, hereafter) refines such ideas, speaking of a gradual immigration of groups carrying the Indo-Aryan language and civilization into the Indian subcontinent. Conversely, Hindu Nationalists deny such theories, instead positing that the Aryan people, language, and civilization were native to India in the Out of India Theory (OIT, hereafter). Proponents of the OIT strenuously oppose the existing migration models as oppressive colonial constructs and “as a means of British policy to justify their own intrusion into India and their subsequent colonial rule” Such developments have been eased by the growing popularity of Hindutva politics in the 1990s, and the post-colonial hostility towards British Empire.

Contemporary efforts in revisionism form a result of the desire to correct past injustices and perceived distortions. Thus, revisionist efforts on the part of Hindu Nationalists seek to free discourse surrounding the Aryan Question from “theologically driven assessments of Indian culture and traditions” according to Prakash Shah, a prominent critic of the Western account of Indian studies. He further warns, “unless we… [go] beyond a framework based on recycled scraps of Christian theology, we will do a disservice to ourselves and to future generations.” Although there is merit to the revisionism of Indian History, given the distortion of history during Colonial India, politics and the urge to condemn colonialism in its entirety have compromised the efficacy of such efforts. The revisionist projects, therefore, often revert to the opposite fringe and coupled with the distortionist propensity of politics, compromise the efficacy of such efforts.

Aligning with the emerging democratization of history, the appropriation of the modern historical discipline into a tool of political influence has led to the inclusion of evidence from religious texts, at the expense of scientific and historical accuracy. Applying such to the case study, revisionist efforts surrounding the Aryan Question have been spurred by the political motives of Hindu Nationalists, who seek to restore the pre-enlightenment authority of religious texts in a bid to further their political goals. Under the veneer of revisionism, Hindu Nationalists continue “the writing of religious literature”, thereby compromising the efficacy of revisionist efforts.

As an inflamed reaction to colonialism and the AIT revisionist scholars posit the autochthonous nature of the ‘Aryan’ claiming that the Indo-Aryan languages originated within the Indian subcontinent and spread to Europe and Central Asia. Proponents of this theory cite their own interpretations of religious texts such as the Rigveda, so as to further their own political goals and promote the ancientness of Hinduism at the expense of objective truth. Michael Witzel supports such stating that revisionist scholarship is “a political undertaking aiming at 'rewriting' history out of national pride or for the purpose of 'nation building'.” The formation of Hindu Nationalism can be observed in the 1920s, as the movement for India’s independence from Britain gained momentum. The two most influential figures in its formulation were Madhav Sadashiv Golwalkar (1906-73) and Vinayak Damodar Savarkar (1883-1966). The fundamental Hindutva notion that the Hindu culture originated in India was threatened by the idea that the Aryans hailed from outside India, which would make the “followers of the Vedic religion… disqualified from being Hindus” and “essentially no different from those revering other ‘foreigners’ such as Muhammad or Christ.” This birthed the desire of Hindu Nationalists to construct a glorified past, and assert the indigenous nature of the Aryans. Such is a key feature of nationalism, which generally involves “the creation of a sense of continuity between the past and the present” The past is dissected in search of materials to construct “historic identity, unity, glory, and continuity” and guide political action in the present. This aligns with Hobswan’s, ‘The Invention of Tradition’, wherein he argues that many ‘traditions’ that “appear or claim to be old are quite recent in origin and sometimes invented.”, relating such to the use of historiography to develop nationalism. Consequently, the OIT was purported to maintain the indigenous nature of the Aryans, and can thus be traced back to the writings of Golwakar in ‘We, or the Nationhood Redefined’ (1939) in which he denies all migration models, instead positing that Hindus have always been “in undisputed and undisturbed possession of this land …before the land was invaded by any foreign race” and “children of the soil”, with Michael Witzel claiming such “terminology [is] clearly reminiscent of contemporary fascism”, with its allusions to the Nazi slogan ‘blood and soil’. In ‘In Search of the Cradle of Civilisation’, (1995), David Frawley rejects the AIT, alluding to the historiography surrounding Colonial India as “no more accurate than a papier-mache model of a jet engine”. Upon dismissing the claim that the Vedic Aryans entered India from outside of the Indian subcontinent, Frawley presents linguistic evidence from the Rig Veda, which contradicts scientific and historic facts, and thus undermines the accuracy of his discourse. Edwin Bryant supports such, positing that Frawley's historical work is more successful in the popular arena, that '[Frawley] is committed to channeling a symbolic spiritual paradigm through a critical empirical rational one'.

Save your time!
We can take care of your essay

• Proper editing and formatting
• Free revision, title page, and bibliography
• Flexible prices and money-back guarantee

Place Order

Thus, Hindu Nationalist discourse reflects the perversion of historiography as it emerges as an instrument of political power. As such, historical and scientific accuracy has been neglected, while evidence from religious texts becomes increasingly accepted, thus compromising the efficacy of revisionist efforts.

The entry of politics into the historical discipline has fostered antagonism towards dissenting views, thus compromising the efficacy of revisionist efforts. As such, the discourse of non-Indian composers is blindly shunned and opposed by Hindu Nationalists, making their discourse primarily an emotional and political response, rather than a genuine effort at revisionism.

In post-colonial India, negative public sentiment towards British Empire has aided the growth of Hindu Nationalism. Capitalizing on such, Hindu Nationalists maintain a degree of hostility towards Western and non-Indian scholarship, blindly opposing any views other than their own, regardless of the merit of such ideas. Such is epitomized in Golwakar’s, ‘We, or the Nationhood Redefined’ (1939), in which the recurring disapproval of Western scholarship sets the tone for the work, “what authority is there to prove our immigrant nature? The shady testimony of Western scholars? … the superiority complex of the 'White Man' blurs their vision”. Such antagonism towards Western scholarship, despite the merit of the IAMT, compromises the efficacy of the revisionist project, as Hindu Nationalists are more concerned with objecting to non-India scholarship and solidifying their political position than conducting genuine efforts in revisionism. Further, rather than opposing Western scholarship on the lines of merit and evidence, Hindu Nationalists tend to do so on moral grounds. In Golwakar’s, ‘Bunch of Thoughts’ (1966), he states, “[The AIT], is very recent and artificial. It is one of the modern superstitions being assiduously built up by unscrupulous power-seeking persons.” Such reflects the innate irony of Hindu Nationalist writings as the majority of such works are aimed at furthering their political aims and are therefore ‘power-seeking’ themselves. This “moral disqualification” of Western Indology is a recurrent theme in indigenous writings but is largely unfounded as Western thought has abandoned its 19th and 20th-century euro-centric agendas. If anything, Western scholarship has seen “constant change in intellectual approaches and fashions in methods and in conclusions”, and has therefore strayed from its colonial agenda and pre-enlightenment use of religious texts as evidence. Despite such, Hindu Nationalist discourse maintains hostility towards views that do not align with their own, labeling such as remnants of “British divide et impera politics”, even conflating the AIT with the IAMT as a means to discredit the latter.

Although the Aryan migration models have strayed vastly from their colonial origins, Frawley and Critics of the IAMT Theory, still tend to conflate it with the outdated AIT, which “has been supplanted by much more sophisticated models over the past few decades [...] philologists first, and archaeologists somewhat later, noticed certain inconsistencies in the older theory and tried to find new explanations, a new version of the immigration theories..”. However, the evolution of the IAMT is generally neglected in Hindu Nationalist discourse allowing them to group all migration models together and falsely disprove them. Such intellectual dishonesty is a key characteristic of nationalist discourse, aiding its reception amongst the populace as they claim they are righting the wrongs of the past and expelling what seems to be the modern incarnation of colonialism.

Such developments reflect critical changes in the nature of the historical discipline and in key historiographical questions. The entry of history into the political sphere inexorably alters the purposes of history as it strays from its goal of objective truth and is exploited as a tool of political implications. Further, Hindu Nationalist discourse reflects critical developments in who composes history due to the emerging democratization of the historical discipline which plunges it into the experimentalism of the public domain, with revisionist views being debated even on “Internet forums such as the so-called ‘IndianCivilization’ Yahoo! forum”. Consequently, the historical discipline has been inexorably changed whereby historical accuracy and non-partisanship are no longer defining features of historical discourse.

Succinctly, the current apologetic and nationalistic leanings of revisionist discourse surrounding the Aryan Question reflect a critical development in the nature of the modern historical discipline. It is no longer exclusively an exercise delineating the events of the past, as historiography emerges as an instrument of political power. Compounded by the democratization of history, efforts to correct the historical record may themselves result in distortion. This is due to the propensity of political agendas to normalize the use of evidence from religious texts and foster blind antagonism towards dissenting views. As such, the discourse of Hindu Nationalists surrounding the Aryan question reflects the propensity of politicians to compromise the efficacy of revisionist efforts to a significant extent.