Posted on: 31 March 2013

Essay:
Kāvali Brothers and the Origins of Modern Historiography in India
By Rama Sundari Mantena
Assistant Professor of History, Department of History,
University of Illinois

I have been engaged in the study of everyday practices surrounding the acts of collecting, surveying, and antiquarianism in the early colonial period in south India. It is through this study that I have come to argue that new practices of history were disciplined by an intellectual encounter, rather than suggest that there was a diffusion of ideas and concepts as a result of the imposition of colonial rule. In other words, the discipline of history was not simply a European ‘import.’ The modern idea of history and history writing was not a neatly packaged body of knowledge that had been formed back in England and had then been simply transported and disseminated in India. Instead, it might be more apt to view historical practice as undergoing profound change and as a culture of historicism that was taking root simultaneously in England and India in the last decades of the eighteenth century[1]. In England, antiquarian practices converged with the practices of philosophical history to produce a new emergent historicism[2]. In India, precolonial practices of history were being appropriated by colonial antiquarian practices, which produced a new historical method that was embraced by both Indians and colonial officials. Conceptualizing it as such disrupts the narrative that colonialism in India was a rule of simple domination[3]. If we consider colonialism or colonial rule to be solely about a rule of dominance, then we might neglect to unravel the discourses that surround practices of history in precolonial India in all their complexity and overlapping allegiances. The explanatory power of the rule of dominance would be at a loss to demonstrate the emergence of new practices of history taking shape in the encounter itself.

In the past few decades, in our zeal to overturn earlier assumptions that colonialism successfully undermined Indian intellectual traditions and practices through the introduction of English education and European knowledge systems, we may have neglected to pay attention to the particular ways in which colonialism enabled Indians to creatively reconfigure Indian traditions and cultures after confronting Western modes of intellectual inquiry. The questions that animate my inquiry are concerned with how we can understand these encounters to get at the emergence of new ideas and concepts while still keeping attuned to the strength of colonial power and the asymmetrical relations that it fostered and sustained. In other words, how do we give weight and power to new ideas without succumbing to the binarism of imperial logic that posits impenetrable differences between European and Indian traditions? One significant practice (amongst multiple enduring practices that emerged in this productive intellectual encounter between Britain and India) was the modern practice of history—especially so its positivist variant.

In my book, The Origins of Modern Historiography in India (Palgrave Macmillan, 2012), I examine the work of Colin Mackenzie and his Indian assistants, especially the Kavali brothers, to illuminate the generative nature of the intellectual encounter in the making of an archive for South India. Mackenzie, a Scotsman, was sent by the then governor-general to conduct topographical surveys of the regions after the Mysore wars. Mackenzie’s primary duties were to map the territories and to report on the conditions of the lands. Mackenzie became very intimate with the geography of Hyderabad and the Carnatic regions and therefore played a central role in the military campaigns against the Mysore state. His surveying duties required him to inquire into the revenue systems and the actual state of the lands. Still, over and above these duties, Mackenzie began to amass an archive for writing south Indian history. His collection included manuscripts, transcription of inscriptions, translations, and sketches of archaeological curiosities. Mackenzie’s collections ran into hundreds of journals and manuscripts that are currently spread across India and Britain. He exemplified the antiquarian impulse with his focused energy on collecting all textual and material objects relating to the diverse pasts of south India. Mackenzie took an interest in philological researches as he was tied closely with some prominent philologists in Madras, such as Francis Ellis and John Leyden and also maintained correspondence with such renowned philologists as H. H. Wilson and Charles Wilkins. However, Mackenzie himself was not a philologist as he lacked training in languages.

Read more:

http://bit.ly/YLNjc2


 View Post on Facebook

Comments from Facebook

There is also another way of looking at these encounters:Matriarchal structures, personal laws, rights of succession that women enjoyed in many parts of India -especially in Kerala that -thrived till that time, were dealt a final blow by these 'dubashis' who intrepreted/translated 'Indian' laws and customs -to the new law-giver -the Englishman..the patriarchal -'male-dominant -vision 'was present ed -to suit the tastes of the victor..the European . Panikkars and Iyers and Iyyengars did a similar havoc with history in Malabar and Travancore..they had no clue about 'history'

Well off hand sounds like another attempt to apologize for simple colonial loot.

Such a brilliant essay!

Hello Mr. Edavarad. It is interesting to note your comment. Could you point us to any pertinent litreature? Atlekar's work on Hindu women suggests that their position began its decline around 200BC, and gathered momentum with the introduction of Christinaty and Islam. Moreover, EICs administration over native lands probably wasn't a given, or, where done, mature enough around the early decades of the 19th century to significantly interfere with civil governance. Also, the anticipation of local hostility to perversions of traditions by interpreters would have tempered such corruptive instincts. Bentinck, for example, was moved, apart from liberal considerations, to abolish Sati only when convinced (by Ram Mohan Roy, among others) that no unrest would result. EIC could scarcely afford risking such trouble, lest its trade suffer. It's charter was reviewed every 20 years, and weak finances had already caused it to lose its monopoly in the 1813 review. With such a state of affairs, it would be instructive to note how the company handled any perversions of customs and reactions to it. As an aside, it is worth remarking that the status of women in pre, early and mid-Victorian society wasn't exalted either. For example, they had to surrender all their property to their husbands upon marriage, and lost claim to it even after separation. Their confinement and 'correction' was accepted, and so was their auction to bidders when divorce proceedings were deemed too much trouble.

What a breadth of fresh air the essay is. When one reads Fergusson's later works on Indian architecture, one is struck at the alignment of his historical sketches to modern, accepted ones. Arrival to such an advanced state of knowledge merely a century from the first stirrings of Oriental interest (the first half of which saw shifting political fortunes) would hardly have been possible in a place as diverse as India without significant native sources and involvement, and Ms. Mantena's work seems to flesh this out. I only hope her book isn't as dense as this essay.

Hello Ms. Rain. If one includes the wooden prototypes that Buddhist, Hindu and Jain architecture evolved from, it could span the better part of 3000 years.

Thats what the toffee noses did!Tried to make the indians think their knowledge was primitive and made them feel ashamed of it.Whos ashamed now?They done it all over the world,they thought God is English-what what...

>> would hardly have been possible in a place as diverse as India without significant native sources and involvement, I am sorry RBSI/Sashi, I find the above (mentioned by both of you as a important point) such a obvious truth that I am not impressed by its "coming out" -- such data points pepper the landscape and are too many to recount. The question to my mind are -- 1) Who controlled the data 2) Who used the data to flesh the narrative 3) Who controls the narrative 4) Is the narrative honest. Exulting in the participation of Indians in the colonial project to me, makes no sense. We were of course the coolies at various levels, in all fields. The work was always ours. Everything. The benefits were always theirs. I would say that little has changed today either. I find no reason to celebrate coolidom then, or now. The article both of you seem to have liked, is to me, just that. "Oh wow look, we acted as coolies to the great white man" -- basically. Dont get me wrong, I am not saying that documenting the Indians whose brains were picked by the British in their projects is a trivial task OR that bringing their work to light is a step in removing the supperssion of Indian narrative. What I am saying is that the above "Indians helped British" is a data point -- the way it is woven into a narrative is the basic difference!! Say, the same data point point can be used in two stories. 1) The British helped Indians rediscover themselves. OR 2) The British used the information extracted from Indians in good faith for nefarious means. Historians, when they go beyond presenting data, and turning the data into narrative (which they often do for both RIGHT AND WRONG reasons), is where the "real fun" of history starts. I submit, the above is a flawed narrative, even if it brings to light and uses some right data points.

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=609565122405859&set=a.609564792405892.1073741837.100000571300726&type=1&theater

Matriarchal structures are on the last leg..of their journey..the English rulers and their Dubashis having perverted History and Law to steal property/estate rights from the Matriarchs..our own historians and scholars -not having a clue about how matriarchal structures survived these 10,000 years

Hello Satyakamji. Yes, significant native involvement in drawing out the history of the sub-continent would be a given. But, it is surprising how sparse such acknowledgment is. India is credited, by some authors, to be ahistorical - by Western standards - before Muslim rule, sighting the lack of local records to piece together a narrative. Thus Ms. Mantena's statement: "The modern idea of history and history writing was not a neatly packaged body of knowledge that had been formed back in England and had then been simply transported and disseminated in India...colonialism enabled Indians to creatively reconfigure Indian traditions and cultures after confronting Western modes of intellectual inquiry." I do not think there are too many authors who have explored such a line of inquiry. Even with Islamic preoccupation with record keeping, William Dalrymple, for one, has stated that no Western scholarship has attempted to study them to get at the native view of the Afghan Wars or the Mutiny. But, could it really be that such histories were developed and corrupted by the British for their benefit? Many of the main narratives have remained unchanged since Fergusson's time. It is difficult to believe that people like Jones, Prinsep, Cunningham, Fergusson or Mackenzie mortgaged their integrity for imperial benefit. I guess it would be a disservice to approach their work with suspicion. Some, and Indians too, might have been tempted to interpret history for personal gain, but they could be exceptions rather than the norm.

Thanks Mr. Edavarad. I will read it up. But, 10,000 years of matriarchal bias seems an overstatement, as even productive agriculture was't developed around that time.

It was women who found 'agriculture'..not men..please read Mahabharata once again..read Nalacharitam..2 women from Indian mythology had the power to reduce the foe to cinders:Damayanthi and Gandhari ..its not black magic..its called the power of truth..character..when women lost their faith in their own self..their inherent purity..they lost everything..

Thank you for the pointers. I will look them up. By the way, my comment was based on Jared Diamond's work: "The various durations of government around the world are linked to the various durations and productivities of farming that was the prerequisite for the rise of governments. For example, Europe began to acquire highly productive agriculture 9,000 years ago and state government by at least 4,000 years ago, but subequatorial Africa acquired less productive agriculture only between 2,000 and 1,800 years ago and state government even more recently."

>> 2 women from Indian mythology had the power to reduce the foe to cinders:Damayanthi and Gandhari You mean Kannagi instead of Damayanti? right?

Hello Sashi-ji >> Yes, significant native involvement in drawing out the history of the sub-continent would be a given. But, it is surprising how sparse such acknowledgment is I agree with the above in toto, and as such, as I mentioned, there is value in acknowledging the same. However as I said before, the bigger piece of the puzzle in the next statement. >> colonialism enabled Indians to creatively reconfigure Indian traditions and cultures after confronting Western modes of intellectual inquiry." Is a common refrain, I do not think there was any of the creative reconfiguration after confronting or what not. At least no proof has been provided for the same in the essay. It is just a statement, especially in the case of the Kavali brothers. The current Indian history is indeed just like English cloth, made from Indian raw materials, but in English mills and sold right back to India. Knowledge, cotton, gunpowder --- no difference. Its the same story. I wish the essay dwelt on how the Kavali brothers ended up being yet another case of resource extraction and loss of narrative. That would be a more truthful narrative to me. This I do not find exciting.

kannagi indulges in self-mutilation--its very distressing--Damayanthi and Gandhari are Nuclear powerhouses who could turn the foe into ashes just with one look..Durvasavu is also known to possess this power(pl see the notes section :http://www.facebook.com/notes/sasi-edavarad/kannagis-is-a-very-grim-story/159904200695217

Historians have found it easy to explain 'power of the rule of dominance'..they never figured out the sources and power of' legitimacy ' that matriarchal relations /laws/structures that existed in pre-colonial times..