Likewise
world history Indian history has been divided by the Indian historians into
three periods. These periods are ancient, mediaeval and modern. However beside
these we also know about its segmented periods like Paleolithic, Mesolithic, Neolithic,
early historic, classic, early mediaeval, Sultanate, Mughal, late mediaeval
period, colonial period etc. We can see this periodization in history part of
Social science subject of upper primary school level. Where class six history
syllabus deals with ancient period, class seven with mediaeval and class eight
with modern period. Here a question rises that why historians separated history
in different? What is the base of this periodization? In a simple way we can
say that periodization of history is essential to understand a time segment
better. It may be a right but we can’t say it a perfect answer. Then what would
be the perfect answer? To know about it let’s have a pip into Indian history
writing.
The systematic history writing begins in India by the
officials of the British East India Company. Systematic history writing means
the writings based on authentic evidence (Primary source), critical thinking and
chronology, which is the soul of historiography. Most of the historians of this
period who wrote Indian history belonged to European countries and followed the
history writing theories of the enlightenment (A revolt against
religion) period historians,
philosophers like Niebuhr (Critical examination of the sources), Ranke (Application
of primary sources in inquiry), August Comte (Application of scientific method
of inquiry) of Europe. After the battle of Plassey the East India Company
officials not only came into the contact of Indian languages like Sanskrit, Farsi
etc. but also in Sanskrit and Farsi texts. They studied, researched and
translated it in English. After the establishment of East India Company rule in
Bengal the Governor of Bengal Henry Vansittart (1760-64 AD) commissioned
Salimullah to write a history of Bengal.[1] This
text has been translated into English by Francis Gladwin under the title ‘A
Narrative of transactions in Bengal’. After it by the inspiration of Warren
Hastings Ghulam Hussain Khan Tabatabai wrote a history of India from 1707 to
1780 under the title ‘Siyar U’l Muntakharin (View of Modern Times)[2]. It
is the history of the British Government policy in the Bengal Presidency.
‘Robert Orme’ the historiographer of the east India Company from 1769 to 1801
deeply studied the Indo-Muslim chronicles of the medieval period and wrote one
the famous text ‘Historical fragments of the Mughal Empire, of the Marathas,
and off the English concerns in Indostan in from M.Dc. LIX'. On the basis
of Muslim historian writings Robert Orme easily wrote a brief outline of the
Muslim ruling dynasties in India from the invasion of Muhammad bin Qasim in 712
AD. But their headache was the ancient Indian History Exploration especially before
the Turk invasion.
For it Orientalist and Indologist approach historians came
forward. In this addition Mrityunjay Sharma One of the teacher of Ford
William College of Calcutta wrote a historical text in Bengali which was published
in 1808 AD. In this text he separated Indian history into four periods – Satya
Yug, Treta Yug, Dwapar Yug, and Kali Yug.[3] the
imperialist approached historian also contributed in it. Imperialist historian James
mill wrote a textbook which published in 1817. In his text he divided Indian
history into three segment – the Hindu, the Muslim and the British period.[4] This
periodization was based on the religion of the ruling king of that period. So
James Mill is off the opinion that the mediaeval period in Indian history
begins with the establishment of Muslim rule or Delhi Sultanate in 1206 AD and
it continued till the arrival of the British in power. Several Nationalist
Historians like K P Jaiswal, R.C Majumdar, and R. K Mukharjee etc. accepts the
mills theory of periodization in their Writings. In this addition historian V.
Smith divided India's past into 5 phases - the ancient period, Hindu period,
the period of the mediaeval Hindu kingdoms, the Muslim period, and the British
period[5]. There
were several problems to accept this religion based periodization. Because
neither all rulers of Ancient India followed Hinduism nor all rulers of
mediaeval period were followers of Islam. However Up to the decade of 1960 these two periodization
were used by Indian historians as well as Indian History Congress also.[6] But the
Marxist Approached Historians called it communal classification of Indian
history. Because the purpose of James mill's periodization was to establish the
fact that the British rule is better than the Hindu and Muslim Rule.
After Indian Independence the Marxist historians like DD
Kosambi, R S Sharma challenged Mills theory of Periodization of Indian History.
According to Marxist historian the periodization of Indian history can’t be
done on the basis of religion of the ruling ruler or dynasty. But on the base
of societal change came in different period. By
analyzing a series of inscriptions, land grants by the kings to the Brahmans,
temples and the political subordinate etc. Marxist historians identified
important change in state, society and in economy especially after the Gupta
period. These changed system also can be seen in practice during Sultanate and
Mughal period before the advent of the British in power. So they called this
period Early Medieval Period as a period between ancient and medieval.
Thus on the basis of Marxist approached historians opinion
after indian independence the period from Palaeolithic age to Gupta period kept
under Ancient Period, Post Gupta Period to the establishment of the
british rule under Medieval period and after it regarded as Modern
Period in Indian History.
