Indian history marred with different interpretations as per current convenience

Modern India is a land of heterogeneous humanity of different nationalities, racial and ethnic groups and religious communities which have settled in this land over time. The first interest in the documentation of Indian history in a chronological manner came from the most unlikely source – the European scholars and the British administrators. Interest in India was kindled by the work of European scholars, like Prof. F. Max Mueller, studying the Sanskrit language. The British administrators also began the documentation of Indian history around this time. The first version of the new Indian History was therefore a reflection of the mindset of the British historians. Since the British themselves came from a clearly defined dynastic rule, their interpretation was also biased in favor of documentation of rise and fall of dynasties. This is still the way history is taught in our schools and colleges as we still follow the system of education bequeathed to us by the British. In the beginning another problem that arose was that the imperialists believed that there was no civilization like the Greek civilization- le miracle Grec. Comparisions were made in things that had no link to anything Greek. The best example is probably the one where Vincent Smith, the pre-eminent historian of early India, while writing about a mural at the Ajanta site says that it was influenced by the Persians and ultimately by the Greeks where as nothing of the type can be even vaguely deduced either artistically or historically. Indian historians of this era reacted sharply to this assumption and vehemently put forth the idea of the “spiritual “greatness of Indian culture as opposed to the “materialism” of other civilizations. It was a long time later that it was accepted that each civilization was unique and civilizations do not need to be clones of each other. Most later day Indian historians had either participated or were influenced by the struggle for independence movement. They began to interpret history in a way that emphasized that the best of Indian history had come before the British advent in India. This was anti-British sentiments being echoed in the re-interpretation of history. As the Indian independence movement entered its last phase, a section of its people started having a Hindu-Muslim divide in their thinking. Mindsets during this period led to history being viewed along entirely sectarian lines - Ancient India was now viewed as “Hindu” in nature and the Medieval as “Muslim”. Today history is primarily studied in the light of other features which go into the making of a civilization rather than having a kings and rulers emphasis. It is now believed that changes in the political scenes are mirrored in the economic field which in turn has a bearing on the relationships in society. The earlier works are very crucial in establishing a strong chronological backbone. History all over the world today is not merely studied for its dynasties but also for the impact it had on the economic and social life of its people.