Twitter
Advertisement

People who talk about ancient Indian tradition don't often understand it: Upinder Singh

India’s religious landscape has been pluralistic for centuries, but historian and professor Upinder Singh tells Gargi Gupta and Siddhartha Rai that this kind of pragmatism has failed to take roots in modern India

Latest News
article-main
FacebookTwitterWhatsappLinkedin

Book: Political Violence In Ancient India
Author: Upinder Singh
Publisher: Penguin
540 pages
Rs 999

Upinder Singh's Political History of Ancient India is the first, full-length book to investigate an aspect of our history about which very little is known. And Singh, a professor of ancient Indian history at Delhi's St Stephen's College, tackles the subject with much thoroughness. Her inquiry, spanning 1,200 years, from 600BCE to 600CE, takes in everything from Emperor Ashoka's inscriptions to political treatises to the epics Ramayana and Mahabharata and Kalidas' poetry. It's a study that has as much value for historians as for those who study violence, especially how the state uses force, in our times. Gargi Gupta and Siddhartha Rai speak to the soft-spoken woman who combines grace and remarkable forthrightness.

On violence in ancient India:

My book talks about political violence of three specific kinds — punishment, war and the interface between the state and the forest. Apart from these, there are many other forms of violence. Is our time more or less violent compared to then? As a historian, I don't have solid data to give an empirical answer to that. But while there is a great deal of difference between 21st century democratic India and the monarchies and oligarchies in the period 600BCE-600CE, the issue of political violence has been of concern from ancient times to now. It was something that ancient Indian thinkers, including religious teachers, rulers, poets, dramatists engaged with in a major way.

On Ashoka:

Ashoka was a Buddhist, but he didn't make Buddhism the 'state religion'. In his inscriptions, he tells his officers very categorically to concern themselves with the welfare of the different sects — the shramanas, brahamanas, nirgranthas, ajeevikas. Then there's an inscription that talks about concord, or samavaya — people talking to each other with respect. I don't know if this is 'secular' but certainly the religious landscape of India has been pluralistic for centuries. I would say it was a kind of pragmatism, which has not happened in modern India.

On sectarian violence and ancient India:

I found three instances of sectarian violence in the 1,200 year-period I study. We should not imagine that religious tension did not exist in ancient times, but it is really after 600CE that you get more examples of such conflicts.

On history being used to target a community:

The targetting of Muslims is plain wrong — and you don't have to appeal to the remote past to say this. I find that people who talk about ancient Indian tradition don't often understand it. If you are looking at such a long period in history, you can choose what you want to see. To me, if there is a lesson in all this, it is to recognise how important it is that the voices who question persecution, or demonising of particular groups are not silenced.

On the ASI and archaeology in India:

Immediately after independence, there was a concerted search by the ASI to locate the epics in archaeology. So you had the site of Hastinapur excavated by BB Lal to look for proof of the Mahabharata. His claims to finding it can be questioned, but in the process he discovered a lot of important data. Similarly, the Purana Kila excavations didn't find evidence of Indraprastha, but they found other stuff. It is important given the huge size of the subcontinent and the fact that there are so many unexplored sites, that the energies of the ASI be harnessed towards archaeological research not political agenda. That would be a real waste of resources.

On Left vs right history:

I did my BA and MA in the 1970s, the heyday of Marxist historiography. At the same time, I had some rather nondoctrinaire teachers irreverential towards everything and everyone, including the historians we were reading in the classroom. I think that instilled the attitude of asking questions. But it was only when I was doing my PhD that I realised how conditioned I'd been. Over the years, I've felt that if history is going to move forward in creative ways, then we have to break out of the dichotomy of left history and right history. You really need historians who are not trying to push a particular political line or agenda.

On reactions to the book:

I started this book eight years ago, and the fact that it has been published now is very significant. I'm overwhelmed by the reaction I've been getting. I think these reactions are because many people are very concerned about political violence in our time.

Find your daily dose of news & explainers in your WhatsApp. Stay updated, Stay informed-  Follow DNA on WhatsApp.
Advertisement

Live tv

Advertisement
Advertisement