Biases in Indian History
The Indian History and Culture Society held a series of annual symposia on Bias in Indian Historiography, in the late 1970s. The proceedings are available on the Internet, and indicate a highly professional and diverse community of historians (there are 30 members, 7 from Aligarh Muslim University). The papers show a commitment to a truthful, uniquely Indian view of India’s history, as opposed to foreign views that dominate world opinion.
In this blog I will enunciate from the original the bewildering variety of biases that have crept into the foreign-divined narrative of India’s history. In later posts I shall give updated (as far as possible) examples of each.
Anglophone Bias: dominance of English-language sources and neglect of older non-English chronicles in 16th to 19th centuries which are less polluted by colonial greed and missionary propaganda.
Greek Bias: tendency of Western scholars to attribute developments they consider positive to Greek influence, e.g suggesting that Nagasena of Milindapanha may have been Greek
Christian Bias: tendency of Western scholars to attribute developments considered positive to Christian influence, e.g. exaggerating the influence of Christianity on Mahatma Gandhi.
Imperialist Bias: tendency of Western, particularly British, scholars to justify British rule over India, e.g. the writings of Vincent Smith.
Foreign Bias: the view that the stimulus to any progress in India has come from outside India — through Aryans, Greeks, Arabs, Turks, Mongols and British; e.g. the claim that Brahmi is derived from a Semitic script, notwithstanding the evidence of Indus Valley culture and the later Vedic texts.
Racial Bias: Interpreting differences across India in racial and/or racist terms, e.g. the so-called Aryan-Dravidian conflict.
Self-righteous Bias: Criticism of Indian institutions such as caste by British scholars (for example) without any mention of inequalities in their own society or other societies.
Face-saving Bias: Attempts to conceal or rationalize the enormity of the negative aspects of British rule in India, e.g. casual treatment of Jalianwala Bagh massacre or the Bengal famines.
Language Bias: The use of colonial terminology and language rater than Indian. e.g. “native” instead of Indian, sedition rather than patriotism, terrorist rather than revolutionary, hooligans rather than freedom fighters, or terms like the “Black Hole”.
Supremacy Bias: attributing any positive development to British rule and any negative development to Indians.
Marxist Bias: Interpreting history strictly in economic and class struggle terms while ignoring cultural, religious (etc.) factors. The Marxist influence has been pervasive since independence.
Hindu Bias: Omitting the impact of non-Hindu reformers such as Kabir Das or Rahim on the Hindus and other communities, or prioritizing Pauranic sanatan dharma over Vedic dharma.
Muslim Bias: Omitting negative aspects of Muslim rule/rulers, such as the massacres chronicled by the invaders themselves, or the bloody conversions carried out even by the “tolerant” mughal Akbar.
