EARLY I N D I A

predominant subject of historical study in Europe at that time. Admiration

for the Roman Empire was imprinted both on those involved with the British
Empire and on historians, such as Vincent Smith, writing on Indian history
at the turn of the century; the first empire provided the model for the second.
The protagonists of history were kings and the narration of events revolved
around them. The autocratic king, oppressive and unconcerned with the
welfare of his subjects, was the standard image of the Indian ruler, with
a few exceptions such as Ashoka, Chandra Gupta II and Akbar. As for
actual governing, the underlying assumption was that British administration
was superior and a centralized bureaucracy was the best form of administration.
In the late nineteenth century Indian historians followed the model of
political and administrative history, producing dynastic histories highlighting the lives of rulers. But colonial explanations of the Indian past were
not always acceptable to Indian historians. Historical theories were part
of the growing political contestation, particularly now that the close
relationship between power and knowledge was being tacitly recognized.
The evolution of an Indian middle class familiar with the English language indicated more communication between the colonizer and the
colonized.
Most Indian historians of the early twentieth century were either participants in the national movement for independence or influenced by it. Prominent among them, and expressing varying degrees of nationalist sentiment,
were R. Mitra, R. G. Bhandarkar, R. C. Dutt, A. S. Altekar, U. N. Ghoshal,
K. P. Jayaswal, H. C. Raychaudhuri, R. K. Mookherjee, R. C. Majumdar,
K. A. Nilakanta Sastri and H. C. Ojha. Historical interpretation often drew
from existing views but could be changed to what was now regarded as a
legitimate nationalist interpretation. Nationalist historians tended to
endorse the more favourable views from colonial readings of the early past,
but criticized the unfavourable. Thus, it was asserted that some institutions
such as democracy and constitutional monarchy were familiar to the Indian
past. References to the mantriparishad, the council of ministers, were compared to the working of the British Privy Council. Non-violence was praised
as a special Indian contribution to civilization, yet at the same time the
Gupta King, Samudragupta, was described as the Napoleon of India and
his conquests much lauded. Nationalism was taken back to the fourth
century BC with the opposition to Alexander's campaign and the creation
of the Mauryan Empire that extended over virtually the entire subcontinent.
Aryan Vedic culture was viewed as the foundation of Indian civilization,
its antiquity taken back to the second millennium BC. The emphases on
z 16