Ancient, Modern historiography & Fiction

Original Source: https://www.jeyamohan.in/197147/

Date: 22-Mar-2024

 

Respected Mr. Jeyamohan,

I recently read your short stories collection Aayiram Ootrukkal. When I intended to buy one of your short stories collection, the categorization based on Travancore's royal family was easier to choose. I was interested in Travancore's reign and its kings and queens. It is my view that the image of India's history is never complete without considering princely states' histories.   

The few books I have come across till now about the kings of princely states would either paint a caricature or would heap praise. I had considered Travancore to be different, with a several of these kings being adept at arts like music and painting. I had discussed this with my friends in amazement, which is the reason to choose this book easily. Apart from the kings, information about important figures like Dhalavaai Veluthambi, Padmanabhan Nambi and Maavingal Krishnapillai that's present in the stories lead me to subsequent search and readings on the topics. Two questions on that front.

Question 1:

Aside from all the palaces, temples, festivals and the pomp of the Travancore state, its glad to read about the happenings inside of the 4 walls of barracks. Still, there is also a voice which sounds that this may be untrue as this is a fiction. Though there are portions touching on the pettiness of the royal family, majority of the stories had developed in a manner praising their personalities. My question is, is there still a Travancore citizen within you? On a historical perspective: do you consider the political conduct of Travancore dynasty - of paying allegiance to British by submitting accounts, getting rations, writing apology letters thereby ensuring the continuity of dynasty rather than warring against them - as a critique or as its proponent?  

Question 2:

Though it is a fiction with an historical background, the stories were structured in a way by which it wasn't possible to discern the real information from imagination. Please narrate about the way such stories are constructed. How do the real events and imaginations not overpower each other?

Related question: Which books would you recommend to understand about the Travancore state in detail? What is your assessment about Manu Pillai's 'The Ivory Throne'?

Thanks,

Pravin Natril

 

Dear Pravin,

The analysis about what constitutes history is being conducted in various aspects. In fact, one of the primary questions of modern ideology is, 'What is history'? There are several levels of explanations for history - like classic explanation, modernistic explanation, post-modernistic explanation and transmodernism explanation.

The approach to history that we learn today is not an ever-existing knowledge. It was created in modern times. For simplicity, it can be categorized as ancient history and modern history.

In ancient times, history was written for the sake of authority. A populace wrote about its own history in order to identify themselves as a community. A geography wrote its own history to identify itself as a nation. A dynasty wrote its lineage as a history to establish its reign. A king wrote his history to establish his fame. 

We get such historical texts from the times history began. Historical recordings had begun from the civilizations of Egypt and Mesopotamia which are supposedly the beginning of history. We find them as rock inscriptions, clay tablets and papyrus books. Even among African tribes, which do not possess a written script, verbal historic recordings are prevalent. In ancient societies, there were Bards, who record the society's history as poems. There were few important historians in ancient history. Herodotus and Thucydides were considered as pioneers of Greek history. 

But the modern historiography that we have today was formed in Europe from seventeenth century onwards. Its qualities and structures were primarily created by British scholars. Once strengthened, it was spread around the world in colonial age. That modern historiography facilitated such colonial supremacy. For Europeans, history was an important tool to subjugate the masses of foreign lands and rule over them.

This is how the colonial masters wrote the history of eastern nations. They were integrated together and were compared. This resulted in a gradual evolution of a world history.

When such evolution of world history happened, its frameworks became more vivid. It is that framework we consider as the foundation of modern historiography.

It was during the period that modern history was formed, modern science developed and created the methods for collection of data for research on history. Three scientific domains became the foundation of modern historical research.

a. Archaeological research. Excavation and things thus excavated getting subjected to scientific research completely transformed the ways of historical research.

b. Endeavors like printing, publishing, publishing ancient texts in prints, performing comparative research on them, translating them etc lead to a great leap in historical research.

c. Statistics and Land surveys. These two scientific domains got formed together. Modern statistics created great changes in historical research. Census, information on sociology, data on financials and cartography transformed the methodology of historical research.

What is the difference between ancient and modern historiography? A society writing a history for itself was ancient historiography, while modern historiography is a history of a community written by themselves or by others but for everyone. Ancient historiography is subjective, while modern historiography is objective.

Since ancient historiography is subjective, it didn't require proofs. If a society writes its own history and accepts it, that should be enough. Such a history is accepted on trust and lasts on trust. It transforms and gets established as a legend. Even if others do not accept, that society would be presenting it as their history. Ancient historiography wouldn't have any validatory methodology at all.

Modern historiography is objective. It requires both the data and the methodologies to present that data rationally in order to create that objectivity. It is the one that can be presented before anyone in this world. The methods of research and debate of modern history pertains to that of modern science. Historical data must be collected and examined according to scientific methodology. It must be compiled and presented according to the methodology generally accepted the world over.

Like in modern science, any idea presented in modern history is also a call for review. To prove that idea invalid is the responsibility of all its opponents. The ones, which defeat all their opponents and prove themselves as true, alone have the respectability of truth.

Ancient historiography is something that a populace had written about themselves via their ethnic history, their legacies and their opinions about others for themselves and for others. Whereas modern history is the one which was written by a populace and also by others about their lands with objectivity which is accepted generally and is compiled as a world history by combining such individual histories.

In Europe, only the modern historiography prevails, while the ancient historiography doesn't exist anymore. Whereas, in places like India where antiquity still permeates, ancient historiography exists primarily. People who are proponents of Hindutva policies, those who clamor about separate nationalities by proclaiming the Tamil antiquity, Kannada antiquity etc and those who write about the history of caste all have the emotional state and research methodology of ancient historiography only.

We can say that the mindset of ancient historiography is the one primarily prevalent in Eastern hemisphere. For instance, in countries like Malaysia and Indonesia, it is regarded that their history starts from only the twelfth century when Islam entered the region. The period prior to that is being painted as 'Dark Ages'.

For instance, in Malaysia, ancient Tamil inscriptions found in places like Kedah are being covered up. The statues that I saw when I first went to Kedah museum in 2006 are not there anymore. In a video being televised there, a researched remarked that all cultures in that region are derived from Arabia and Persia.

Cambodia has a different problem. The gigantic temple Angkor Wat was built by the Khmer ruler Suryavarman II. But prior and post his reign, Cambodia was under the rule of and had contributions from the kings of Thailand and Vietnam. That is an integrated culture. The Hinduism in Cambodia itself was brought in through Thailand only. But people of Cambodia wish to paint a picture that the entire artistic excellence of Angkor Wat was solely from the creation of Khmer people.

Even in Kerala, in general, all history scholars repeatedly profess the history of Malayalam language and the region's history from the period of 16th century onwards. There is basically no research about the Chola's rule nor the ancient Tamil history that was prevalent prior to that. Even history professors aren't learned about this. People there aren't interested in archaeological research at all.

People with prehistoric mental leanings denounce the methodology of modern historiography throughout India. Modern historiographers have been forced to silence nationally as well as regionally. Modern historical research entails a merciless ruthlessness. "Show the evidence, Prove", it keeps sounding. This shows up as an arrogance that rejects the pride and antiquity of those subscribing to ancient historiography. Therefore, they label these modern historiographers as enemies. There is a constant struggle between ancient and modern historiographers. 

 

(To be continued)

 

References:

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/58599155-aayiram-utrugal

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/28264135-the-ivory-throne?ref=nav_sb_ss_1_11

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmodernism

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kedah

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angkor_Wat

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_people

 

Notes:

• This is the first part of a four-part series on this topic - published between 22-Mar-2024 to 25-Mar-2024. Translation to be done accordingly
• The original source uses terms whose literal translation would be Prehistory and modern history, which would normally be the period in history. But my view is that what Jeyamohan refers is the historiography and its methods rather than the period of history itself. This translated article therefore employs the term 'historiography' rather than 'history'.