Download History-I Ballb Notes and more Study notes History in PDF only on Docsity!
MEANING OF HISTORY
The popular meaning of the word ‘History; is “a narrative of recording or inquiry of past events of men in society.” History is the knowledge relating to the development in science, in arts, in politics, in war, in religion and in law with human efforts in a particular country. The quest about knowing the past is known as history. History is the branch of knowledge dealing with past events, political, social, economic, of a country, continent, or the world. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, history means a “a written narrative constituting a continuous methodical record, in order of time or importance or public events especially those connected with a particular country, people or individual.” E.H.Carr says, “the function of history is to promote a profounder understanding of both past and present, through interrelation between them.” History is a narration of the events which have happened among mankind, including an account of the rise and fall of nations, as well as of other great changes which have affected the political and social condition of the human race.—John J. Anderson. 1876. History relates to two points-collections of facts and interpretations. In Greece, Herodotus, who belonged to sixth century B.C is recognized as the father of History. Ancient Indian History can be traced in Vedas, Itihasas and Puranas. However, it is only in the 12th century A.D. that we have a real historical Chronicle in Kalhana’s Rajatarangani. If a science of history were achieved,
it would, like the science of celestial mechanics, make possible the calculable prediction of the future in history. It would bring the totality of historical occurrences within a single field and reveal the unfolding future to its last end, including all the apparent choices made and to be made. It would be omniscience. The creator of it would possess the attributes ascribed by the theologians to God. The future once revealed, humanity would have nothing to do except to await its doom.—Charles Austin Beard. 1933. "Written History as an Act of Fate." Annual address of the president of the American Historical Association, delivered at Urbana, Illinois. December 28, 1933. American Historical Review 39(2):219-231. SCOPE OF HISTORY We can present the scope of history asi. Narrative of past history events those, connected with particular country; ii. Ascertaining the severest truth as to the past and set it forth without fear or favour; iii. Understanding the totality of past human actions; iv. Recording the past facts to explain and interpret not only what has happened, but also why, where and how it happened, rationally and logically by raising questions to understanding the historical process. According to E.H.Carr, the scope of history is “a continous process of interaction between the historian and the facts, and an understanding dialogue between the present and the past.”
dogmas and experiences are recorded in a vastly wider library than the covers of the law book comprise. The well being of humanity depends upon order and progress, and order means, stability of social institutions which, if they are to endure, must be based on the supremacy of rational law. The test of political progress of a state is therefore the predominance of justice or Dharma, which means respect for human personality and well being, and this means quality of all before law. Though law cannot make all men equal if there is no restraining influence of law, there would be anarchy and would be flying at each others through. In primitive and modern societies, law has always represented Supreme social force compelling obedience by communal disapprobation of its transgression. Forms of disapproval have varied from time to time and reaches by habits and custom in past were looked upon as frequent source of calamities, not to individuals but also to the groups, offenders were segregated and proprietary sacrifices were offered to gods. There is a body of custom in all forms of modern societies too, that are regarded as binding upon the whole body of persons, violation of which is visited by penalties enforced by the authority of its member. When the community in collective capacity commands or prohibits the performance of certain actions and inflicts penalties for violation of custom, its will has not merely transmuted the habits of individuals into custom of community, but has also sanctified by force or the compulsive sanctions so complete as to guarantee against injury and loss and this sanction has to be supplements by other restrained based on
personal recognition and public opinion for the authority of law itself may be derived by divine source, by custom, or by fate of some human authority. Law, then, is a form of social force and ordering and adjusting of human activity and relations, through the systematic application of the force of politically organized community, the aim of law is right and justice and it may express canons for the guidance of men’s conduct and may have reference also to the internal acts of will. The great function of law is “the maintenance of fundamental orders, with which men will find security and common conditions of opportunity and the adjustment of those conflict of interest between individuals and groups, which they cannot settle for themselves or in settling which, they encroach upon the interest of others. Spencer define law as “mainly and embodiment of ancestral injunctions”. But he also recognize that legal institutions develop as other social institutions developed and that the law is nor merely a body of formal rules possessing objective validity but is an institution the development of which is inseparable part of social process. It follows from this, law is a body of principles applied by the courts in the exercise of their jurisdiction, and its sources are custom, judicial construction and precedent and legislative enactments. Custom was law, a restraining force and a bond of primitive society, which did not possess a strong, unifying coercive, authority to enforce its authority in spite of the growth of laws in modern times, custom remains still a substratum, and its judicial recognition provides for legal regulation of social facts and circumstances which law cannot readily take
knowledge of historical background for the enactment. Law is primarily the mirror of active organic political life today, and it ought to be an often is instructed by ethical judgments of the community, though its own providence is neither ethical nor religious. Theories as to origin and functions of the state, ideas as regards the meaning and purpose of life, the sanctions by which social duties are enforced in the community. Various agencies through which justice is administered, are some iof the factors that have determinant the nature of law in history. Some have argued, perhaps rightly, that the legal historian must be a lawyer. The utilitarian connection between his subject and the law is as clear as day light. Precedents play in the courts of law of most countries apart to which it is entitled nowhere else, that of a norm that stands almost above discussion. In great Britain where the memory of law goes back further than in any other country, the story of the realm is a matter of considerable practical importance as well as a subject asking for the most radical specialization. Yet the legal historian must not exclusively dwell in the world of his own; he must refer to the advances made by certain other branches such as political, social and economic history. Bereft of the knowledge of history it may not be possible for the legal historian to get a better look into issues involved necessitating enactment which alone will enable him to perciece its true import. Therefore history and the law are mutually dependent on one another.
C) INDIAN HISTORIOGRAPHY
Orientalist School of Historiography: This school tried to link the history of India to the history of Europe. This was done, by the study of languages(as the European and the Indian languages both belong to the strata of Indo-European languages with the same origin). They also tried to link the biblical texts of India like the Dharmashastras to those present in Europe, again indicating similar origin of both these civilisations. This school also studied the social structures like the caste system in India. This was important not only from the point of intellectual curiosity but it was of administrative importance as well, as this knowledge was helpful in furthering colonial rule in India. This school to a large extent, considered India as an exotic civilisation bereft of all material considerations and a civilisation which focussed on aspects like spiritualism and other similar meta-physical concepts. This can be interpreted as ‘in part a reflection of an escape from 19th century European industrialisation and the changes which this industrialisation brought, which were somehow difficult to comprehend.’ One important thing to be noted about this school is that it was the first to apply the Aryan label to the Indian society , which again pointed to a unified origin of the Indian and European societies. Further, they intermingled caste and race, and thus the
and the need of the hour was to reconstruct the economic structure of the colony, so as to be a source of raw material and an importer of the finished British goods. Thus, the change from a non-interventionist to an interventionist ruler, required certain kinds of interpretation of the history of India, which was provided by the utilitarian historians. It should also be noted that the concept of Indian society being the ‘other’ of the European societies, had an important place in this school of historiography. This is clear from the ideas of ‘Asiatic mode of production’ which is an anti-thesis of the ‘European mode of production’. This was used to give legitimacy to the British intervention in the sub-continent as it was necessary to break the stagnancy of the Indian society, so it was the lesser of the two evils, the first being remaining in the same stagnant state for eternity. This contrast between Europe and India became a primary concern, and in many cases resulted in the non-representation of those empirical facts which were not in congruence with the thesis.
The Nationalist Interpretation:
This school of historians emerged towards the end of the 19th century. This was used for the anti-colonial movement for independence. In this school, history was used for two purposes, firstly, to establish the identity of Indians and secondly by establishing the superiority of the past over the present.
For the first purpose, the Aryan theory of race and other similar concepts came handy, whereas for the second purpose, the concept of the ‘golden era of the Hindu civilisation’ was created. This was done because the remoteness in history of the ‘golden age’ was directly proportional to its utility in imaginative reconstructions and inversely proportional to factual scrutiny. The basic thing to be noted is that, the colonial nationalists to a large extent used the same methods of historiography as the imperialists but they interpreted these ‘facts’ differently so as to suit their socio-political needs. Though they did reject some of the imperial concepts like ‘oriental despotism’ etcetera but to a large extent they agreed on the historical facts with the imperialists. This school was also responsible for the rise of religious nationalism based on the classification of the Hindu and Muslim civilizations. It has been argued that this was the period where the concept of separate countries for Hindu’s and Muslims was conceptualized. These interpretations are in the view of Ms. Thapar, distortions of Indian history. She states, “they are ideologically limited and intellectually even somewhat illiterate, because history becomes a kind of catechism in which the questions are known, the answers are known and there is adherence to just those questions and answers. No attempt is made to explore intellectually beyond this catechism.”
capitalist and modern societies; changes in the caste system and the transition from clan to caste; interpretation of religion as social ideology etcetera.
Subaltern School of Historiography
This school believes that all other schools of history were elitist in nature as they were focussed on either the colonial state, the indigenous elites, the bourgeois nationalists or the middle class. So, they highlight the need to study the ‘participation of the subaltern groups’. This school prefers local sources both private and popular in nature upon archives and official papers. They also use ‘oral tradition’ as legitimate historical source material. The following extract is useful in understanding this school, “they encourage the investigation of minutiae of what goes into the making of an event, of the author, of the audience, of the intention…… This kind of history then challenges the validity of making broad based historical generalisations. Each study is self contained. Eventually there are a large number of well documented studies with little cross connection.” Romila Thapar has certain objections to this school which are as follows, firstly, there attitude against generalisation is not acceptable to her as she thinks that by strictly avoiding generalisations there is a possibility of missing the big picture. She states that this school, ‘has no framework of explanation which relates itself to a central point and to which each study
can refer’. So, there is a large possibility of missing the complete picture. Secondly, she also disagrees with the axiom of this school that all readings are equally significant and that there can be no prioritisation of readings. This makes it in form similar to 19th century historiography which believed that all sources are equal. In her view this school of historiography is still to make an impact on the historiography of premodern India. But, it has had a great impact on the history of the third world and has encouraged international comparative studies.
final conclusions are as follows:
The modern historiography of India is a continuing dialogue between colonial, nationalist and post-colonial interpretations. This has enriched historical theory and has also sharpened the debate and evaluation of comprehending the Indian past. She opines that this will provide for a more perceptive understanding of the past, which she thinks is essential on order to understand the present.
UNIT-II:
STATE, POLITYAND GOVERNANCE
Nature of state, notions of kingship
suggest that people had a right to overthrow a king who was cruel, unjust or incompetent (Ja.I,326; III,513-14; VI,156). Such ideas were far too ahead of their time and there is little evidence that they were ever applied. However, the Buddha’s teaching of good governance had some influence in making kings more humane. The best example of this is Aśoka who was probably being completely genuine when he said: ‘All subjects are my children. I wish for them what I wish for my own children – their welfare and happiness both in this world and the next.’ While the Tipiṭaka and later literature always exhort kings to abide by Buddhist values, the general impression they give, almost certainly based on hard experience, is of kings as despotic, arbitrary, self-indulgent and ruthless. ‘Kings are fickle- minded,’ ‘Kings are cruel,’ ‘Like a raging fire, kings are dangerous to be near.’ (Ja.IV,432; V,345; VI,419). Some were described as being ‘like dust in the eye, like grit in the soup, like a thorn in the heel’ (Ja.II,240). When King Milinda asked Nāgasena if they could have a discussion on the Dhamma the latter said: ‘Sire, I will discuss with you if you do so like a learned person and not like a king.’ Milinda asked what the difference was between these two approaches and Nāgasena replied: ‘When the learned are discussing, beliefs are overturned, theories are unravelled, assertions are refuted, ideas are accepted, points are made and other points are made against
them. When kings are discussing they say something and punish anyone who disagrees with it’ (Mil.28-9). Whether kings were good or bad, they had great power and the Buddha modified some of his teachings so as to avoid coming into conflict with them. In deference to the monarch he said that a person could not join the Saṅgha until they have fulfilled any obligations they had to the king (Vin.I,39) and that Vinaya rules could be changed if the king required it (Vin.I,137). At the same time he told monks and nuns to steer clear of royal courts so as not to get involved in all their intrigues, jealousies and temptations (A.V, 81). The three kings who appear most frequently in the Tipiṭaka are Pasenadi of Kosala, Bimbisāra of Magadha and his son and heir Ajātasattu. It was about two years after his enlightenment that the Buddha first met King Pasenadi in Sāvatthi, the capital of Kosala (S.I,68). Impressed by his teaching, the king and his chief queen Mallikā soon became two of the Buddha’s most dedicated disciples. Many discourses in the Tipiṭaka record dialogues between the Buddha and the king and nearly all the discourses in one chapter of the Saṃyutta Nikāya consists of such dialogues (S.I,68-102). Pasenadi’s genuine integration of the Dhamma into his life is nowhere better illustrated than by the fact that his commitment to the Buddha’s teachings did not prevent him from having respect for and being generous towards other religions (S.I,78; Ud.14). According to tradition, Pasenadi
Ajātasattu ruled for 35 years and was eventually murdered by his own son Udāyibhadda. iii) KAUTILYAN The history of tradition of Indian Politics is ancient and dates back during the time of Vedas. The discussions regarding politics are found in ‘smritis’ and ‘puranas’ by the name ‘dandaniti’. References to various political texts are available which studied and explored the concept of ‘dandaniti’. It is perhaps Kautilya’s Arthashastra which stands out to be thoroughly scientific and most authoritative interpretations of these ancient studies. Written in around 4th century BC by the Prime Minister of The Great Mauryan Empire Kautilya, also known as Chanakya or Vishnugupta, Arthashastra is one of the most influential and comprehensive treatises in Political Science in the Indian Vedic Civilization. Regarded as quintessence of ancient Vedic wisdom in politics and economics, Arthashastra holds remarkable relevance in today’s times with some curious resonance with the thoughts and theories of various philosophers, economists and political scientists around the world. Unlike many other writers in the polity, Kautilya is unique Indian political thinker who was both thinker and statesman. He participated in various social and political revolutions of his Age and abstracted from his study of conflicts some general principles capable of universal application and effective in all
times and ages. With more and more studies in the field of politics and economics and with a modern outlook and understanding of world affairs, the relevance and appreciation of Kautilya’s ‘arthashastra’ is incontrovertible. Arthashastra Arthashastra means the science (sastra) of wealth/earth/polity (artha). ‘Artha’ however is bit wider and an all-embracing term with variety of meanings. In ‘Arthashastra’ itself it is being used in various contexts, points out L N Rangarajan in his translation of Kautilya –Arthashastra. It is used in the sense of material well-being, in livelihood, economically productive activity trade etc. This is bit similar with ‘wealth’ which is defined in ‘Wealth of Nations’. In rather simple way, ‘arthashastra’ can be defined as ‘science and art of politics and diplomacy’. This treatise is divided into sixteen books dealing with virtually every topic concerned with the running of a state – taxation, law, diplomacy, military strategy, economics, bureaucracy etc. The book is a masterpiece which covers a wide range of topics like statecraft, politics, strategy, selection and training of employees, leadership skills, legal systems, accounting systems, taxation, fiscal policies, civil rules, internal and foreign trade etc. Arthashastra advocates rational ethic to the conduct of the affairs of the state. The emphasis is on codification of law and uniformity of law throughout the empire. In this essay we shall try to explore Kautilya’s views on legal systems, justice and king’s role in
