Scroll.in has published an excerpt from chapter 21 of Speaking of History, which I’ve reproduced below. It comes from chapter 21, titled “What’s Pride-Worthy in the Hindu Past?” It follows two previous excerpts in The Wire and The Print. Check ’em all out!

---

Conversation: Historians Romila Thapar and Namit Arora discuss India’s proudly plural past

NAMIT: In today’s world, most people just luuuuv to take pride in their cultural past. Personally, I find it hard to take pride in things I did not help create—such as the accident of birth into a particular community or territory. That said, I also recognize that if I were inclined to seek pride in such inheritances, I would find plenty in Indian culture to inspire it.

Yet, too many Hindus today bypass the real and prefer to take pride in fantasies of an imaginary Hindu past. Their desire for cultural pride leads them to accept myth as history or partake in historical distortion. That’s unwarranted of course, but it’s interesting that some Hindus also feel a sense of unwarranted shame. An anguished woman recently asked me the following question online. How would you have responded to her?

“Is there a single thing in the last 3000 years of history that Hindus should be proud of? Or do we just have to be ashamed of everything? Can you please talk about some things that Hindus can be proud of?”

ROMILA: Well, there’s much superb Sanskrit literature, and poetry and drama which is not taxing to read. It has also been translated. There is scientific writing, but this may be a little tough to understand and some describe it as protoscience. Most Indians don’t take the trouble to familiarize themselves with the real thing, so they get fobbed off with fake statements. So how can they begin to be proud of that? It is said that both algebra and geometry evolved through Indians advancing them. Zero and the decimal number system were used in India around the seventh century CE. These are really important.

NAMIT: You know, zero is especially dear to me. I grew up in Gwalior, which has the earliest-known epigraphic evidence of zero as a part of decimal notation! Or at least the earliest that’s on stone, found at a Vishnu temple on a path going up its hill fort. I do take pride in associating myself with zero! (laughs) But yeah, early Indian maths is quite impressive. Can you speak more about things in the cultural realm?

ROMILA: That is the cultural realm for me! 

NAMIT: Right, doing science and maths are aspects of human culture too! But you know what I mean.

ROMILA: Alright, in the cultural realm, such as architecture, art, literature and religion. We tend to look at the end product and judge it. We seldom consider the equally important question of who made it. We should recognize the first-rate craftsmen evident from the great stupas and temples of old and from Mughal architecture and regional styles, built by some local craftsmen and some migrants. These were the shilpins (artisans), who helped build them and kept them in good repair as their inscriptions inform us. The Turushkas did not bring large numbers of craftsmen because they did not need to. Just a few were sufficient and Indian craftsmen were excellent. It was the same with the court artists, the larger number were local painters and were trained by the elders among the artists. 

Let me illustrate this by quoting four or five inscriptions from the Qutb Minar, inside the Minar as you go up. They’re inscriptions written in Devanagari, composed in poor Sanskrit, by masons with Hindu names, who were called in the fourteenth century by Feroz Shah Tughlaq to repair the Qutb Minar. It had been struck by lightning. A group of them came and recorded the repairs they carried out as well as their names, adding that they succeeded in doing the work because they had the blessings of Vishvakarma; they write, ‘Shri Vishvakarma prasade rachita’ or ‘Executed with the grace of Vishvakarma’. This is inside the Qutb Minar.

These craftsmen, trained in another architectural tradition, quickly adapted their techniques—with the help of the god of craftsmen, Vishvakarma! It shows that they were really accomplished, adapting to the new style but also retaining something of the old. The quality of their work is what we should be proud of, as also the aesthetics of the art and the architectural style. We should also recognize that a building may be named after a patron who provided the wherewithal, but the actual workmanship came from the craftsmen. Are the authors of the cultural objects the patrons or those who actually made them?

We have become used to describing civilization as a unique expression of the elite of a particular society and our understanding of what goes into its making is often confined to the cultural patterns of the imaginings of the elite. But in viewing it thus, we miss out on two other important aspects. One is that those who actually construct the objects that define a civilization are people we frequently overlook, such as the artisans and craftsmen. There are of course paintings and books that are products of a single person, but other creations may have manifold makers. And second, we take civilization to be a well-protected formulation from the single source of society with which we associate it. But in fact, when we take apart the making of ideas and objects that have been essential to civilization, we find that its form is porous and it integrates other elements from cultures that interact with it. 

So when someone asks what we should be proud of in our culture or rather in our varied cultures, it does lead one in many directions.

NAMIT: Yeah, certainly. I don’t know this woman, but I suspect her question was implicitly about taking pride in Brahmanical Hinduism, which she seemed to feel defensive about. That is, after all, what most people mean by ‘Hinduism’. For me, this elite layer and subset of Hinduism is indeed harder to take pride in, since it has historically been bound up with caste supremacy, patriarchy, the asocial and self-centred ethics of moksha, disdain for manual labour, purity–pollution taboos and colonizing cultural instincts. However, one can still appreciate its theological non-dogmatism, its relative syncretism, and the intellectual achievements of many individuals in it. But this otherwise baneful layer of Hinduism should never be conflated with the whole of Hinduism.

However, if we take all of the groups now included in the constitutional idea of ‘Hindus’ and consider their ancestors, then we suddenly have a lot more ideas worth taking pride in. We could begin with the Harappans and their amazing urban planning, including indoor toilets and city-wide drainage, and in their being substantially egalitarian and non-warlike. In this, they seem far ahead of the Egyptians and the Mesopotamians. Then there is the great diversity of ‘Hindu culture’ and its rich storytelling traditions. Adivasi groups, such as Gond, Santhal, Bhil, Baiga, Khasi, Munda, Warli, Naga, Irula and others have a rich repertoire of creation stories, mythic epics, heroic ballads, folk tales and ancestral legends, often preserved through song, dance, music, rock paintings and other visual art. We once had thousands—and still have hundreds—of languages in the subcontinent, each representing a somewhat different way of describing and relating to the world. We also have remarkable traditions of musical ragas, folk music and dance, flute and percussion, complex theatre with ancient roots, and more.

Or consider the ecologically minded knowledge systems of the adivasis, and their ways of conservation and sustainable management of forests, wildlife, soil, water, land and other natural resources. Or the egalitarian and matrilineal customs of folk culture that once gave women more equality. Or take the quality of Shudra artisans, architects, bronze and stone sculptors, who worked in guilds and passed down their sophisticated knowledge of materials, metallurgy and artistic design. These skilled manual labourers from a host of ‘Vishvakarma communities’ used their bare hands and simple tools to build so many of Hindu India’s marvellous temples, forts and cities—as well as Mughal buildings!

Also pride-worthy is the religious pluralism of so many of our Bhakti saints and the reflective spiritual traditions of meditation and renunciation. Or take the sexual liberalism of the grassroots Tantric substrate, out of which arose a substantial sex-positive culture during the first millennium, producing the Kama Sutra and all that amazing temple erotica. Those lovey-dovey couples in stone that once adorned so many of our religious buildings are so charming and unique! Really, there’s no shortage of wondrous things in Hindu India’s past.

ROMILA: Also consider the old miniature paintings by Hindu and Muslim artists, whether working under the Mughals or in the scatter of Rajput kingdoms co-existing with the Mughal empire. And the exquisiteness of that painting tradition is something that more of us should learn to appreciate because it is quite remarkable! Many of the top artists in the Mughal courts were Hindus. And they bring some of the earlier tradition from the Jain manuscripts into the Mughal tradition apart from the Mughal style into the paintings at the lesser courts. So that’s something else that we should be proud of . . . if we’re looking for elite cultural objects. 

And again, this is not something that’s usually regarded as high culture, but in my opinion is very much that. Let’s consider weaving techniques for which we were held in great esteem by the rest of the world. It’s absolutely brilliant what our weavers achieved. We could hold the world to ransom—so to speak. The trade that went on with Indian textiles, in every direction, was huge. The economy of India was flourishing partly because it was importing horses that, it was claimed, sweated blood—they were said to have come from Ferghana—and it was exporting large numbers of exquisite textiles, whether of cotton, silk and various mixtures, including chintz, muslin, chanderi and other fabrics.

Another thing we must appreciate is the vibrant culture of dissent that existed in our past. This dissent, expressed through disagreement on various subjects, manifested both as public opinion and in more formal debates. It reflected a certain culture of non-conformity and an acceptance of difference. Dissent was not limited to the nastika (or Shramana) traditions; it was equally prevalent among the many sects within Hinduism. In fact, dissent often served as the catalyst for the emergence of new sects that offered alternative world views. The subject of dissent—its diverse forms and social impact—deserves far greater attention and deeper analysis from historians today.

NAMIT: Yes, that’s a great point. Making fine textiles requires great imagination! Even ancient Kashi was famous for its textiles—as modern Kashi still is, even in our age of automation. So this amazing tradition is quite old. Alright, I think that’s a pretty good list of things from our history that our anxious Hindu woman could consider taking pride in. Of course, if she were instead looking to take pride in being ‘Indian’, the scope of pride-worthy things would jump notably!