Dr T C A Raghavan, a noted diplomat, historian and public intelelctual has written an outstanding book which covers the territory upon which Dipesh Chakravarthy has grazed in his Calling of History. Charkavarthy was concerned only with the writings of Sir Jadunath Sarkar, Ragavan has traversed a much larger chunk of Historiography. He has situated his examination of the three historians whose work he has analysed in great depth, at the intersection of their individual lives, their collaboration in the pursuit of historical documents and the deep personal bonds of friendship that bound them. Their quest for India's past took them to remote villages, towns and cities all over North India and Mahrashtra and thye uncovered significant troves of historical material which were carefully edited and published. All three of the scholars were pioneers in that they were historians who had to locate, collate and edit the documents on which their histories were based. And for the Maharatha Period and the Post Mughal Era this meant a mastery over a number of scripts and languages: Mahrathi, Persian, Arabic, French, Dutch and Portuguese. The three historians collaborated with each other as Dr Raghavan has shown in the most intensnse and academically fruitful manner. It is interesting to learn that Sir Jadunath Sarkar's reconstruction of the Battle of Panipat, 1761 was based on a contemporary record. The Hafta Anjuman a post Mughal history was located and used by Sarkar in his Fall of the Mughal Empire.
The History Men is an important work of historiography as it deals with the intellectual climate in which Indians began to explore their past. This quest was particularly difficult as it coincided with two very huge popular movements: the Freedom Movement and the Partition Movement, both at times collaborating and at times confronting each other. Politically the times were charged with the high voltage current of identity politics, the Moslem and Hindu one aimed at carving a holemand for the Muslims and the other aimed at preserving the unity and integrity of India as a nation and Civilization. Sir Jadunath Sarkar himelf was a victim of the Partion Movement as his eledest son was killed in the riots. And as Raghavan points out he did not recover from this tragedy. The substantial work of Sir Jadunath revolved around Aurangazeb and his reign. His five volume History of Aurangazeb was based on the original letters and Court Documents which were located in Jaipur, Gwalior and other places. Sarkar used the court documents judicially and his account of the rise of the Maharathas as the most powerful challengers to the hegemony of the Mughals was essentially an analysis of Mahratha documents. The collaboration with G S Sardesai was important as Sarkar though conversant with Modi had his transcripts of the Mahrati documents checked by Sardesai.
In his Shivaji and His Times, Sarkar provided a balanced and nuanced account of Sivaji but the Poona Scholars associated with the Ithihasa Samshodaka Mandala like Rajwade were quite hostile to the work. Raghavan expalins the hostility as stemming from the intrusion of a Bengali in Mahrashtra and its history at a time when the cult around Shivaji was becoming the defining element in the identity of Maharashtrians. There is also the growing assertion of a caste identity during this time and Shivaji and his legacy were deeply contested. Rughubir Sinh, the scion of the Sitamau Princely State located in Malwa wrote his D Phil thesis on Malwa in Transition a work which was much appreciated by Sarkar. Later Raghubir Sinh became a memmber of the Lok Sabha and served two terms and established a Research Institute at Sitmau.
Raghavan has done a splendid job in ressurecting the memory and contribution of these early pioneers of Indian Historiography. One of the unfortunate developments of post Independence Era was the appropriation of Indian History by an ideologically committed group of historians, some would even say cabal of histry peddlers, who with the patronage of the Indian State drove these pioneers into obvlivion. Their pamphlet Communalism and the Writing of Indian History published by the Peoples' Publishing House became the manifesto for a kind of History thatn pitted Historians into hostile camps. Anyone disagreeing with the High Priets of the New Creed was "Communal" :\"Reactionary" "Anti Modern" etc. The climate of free and dispassionate reconstruction of the past was vitiated by the personality clash betwee the pioneers like Sarkar, Sardesai, Majumdhar, Nilakanta Sastri, H C Ray chowdhury and others with Mohammad Habib and later his son and successor, Irfan Habib. That this clash has not ended is made amply clear in the recent public brawl in which Irfan Habib prevented the Governor of Kerala from continuing with his Speech. An ugly episode which would have been unthinkable in the civilzed days of Sarkar and friends
The History Men is an important work of historiography as it deals with the intellectual climate in which Indians began to explore their past. This quest was particularly difficult as it coincided with two very huge popular movements: the Freedom Movement and the Partition Movement, both at times collaborating and at times confronting each other. Politically the times were charged with the high voltage current of identity politics, the Moslem and Hindu one aimed at carving a holemand for the Muslims and the other aimed at preserving the unity and integrity of India as a nation and Civilization. Sir Jadunath Sarkar himelf was a victim of the Partion Movement as his eledest son was killed in the riots. And as Raghavan points out he did not recover from this tragedy. The substantial work of Sir Jadunath revolved around Aurangazeb and his reign. His five volume History of Aurangazeb was based on the original letters and Court Documents which were located in Jaipur, Gwalior and other places. Sarkar used the court documents judicially and his account of the rise of the Maharathas as the most powerful challengers to the hegemony of the Mughals was essentially an analysis of Mahratha documents. The collaboration with G S Sardesai was important as Sarkar though conversant with Modi had his transcripts of the Mahrati documents checked by Sardesai.
In his Shivaji and His Times, Sarkar provided a balanced and nuanced account of Sivaji but the Poona Scholars associated with the Ithihasa Samshodaka Mandala like Rajwade were quite hostile to the work. Raghavan expalins the hostility as stemming from the intrusion of a Bengali in Mahrashtra and its history at a time when the cult around Shivaji was becoming the defining element in the identity of Maharashtrians. There is also the growing assertion of a caste identity during this time and Shivaji and his legacy were deeply contested. Rughubir Sinh, the scion of the Sitamau Princely State located in Malwa wrote his D Phil thesis on Malwa in Transition a work which was much appreciated by Sarkar. Later Raghubir Sinh became a memmber of the Lok Sabha and served two terms and established a Research Institute at Sitmau.
Raghavan has done a splendid job in ressurecting the memory and contribution of these early pioneers of Indian Historiography. One of the unfortunate developments of post Independence Era was the appropriation of Indian History by an ideologically committed group of historians, some would even say cabal of histry peddlers, who with the patronage of the Indian State drove these pioneers into obvlivion. Their pamphlet Communalism and the Writing of Indian History published by the Peoples' Publishing House became the manifesto for a kind of History thatn pitted Historians into hostile camps. Anyone disagreeing with the High Priets of the New Creed was "Communal" :\"Reactionary" "Anti Modern" etc. The climate of free and dispassionate reconstruction of the past was vitiated by the personality clash betwee the pioneers like Sarkar, Sardesai, Majumdhar, Nilakanta Sastri, H C Ray chowdhury and others with Mohammad Habib and later his son and successor, Irfan Habib. That this clash has not ended is made amply clear in the recent public brawl in which Irfan Habib prevented the Governor of Kerala from continuing with his Speech. An ugly episode which would have been unthinkable in the civilzed days of Sarkar and friends
