The professional nationalist historians and many early nationalists contributed unconsciously to communal historiography they looked for heroes to inspire the Indian people and found them in those medieval figures who had fought against oppression and in defence of their own states and territories.
This was because, on the one hand, they wanted to express their nationalism and, on the other, academics and early nationalists did not want to antagonize the British rulers who frowned upon any effort to treat as heroes those who had fought against the British. For example, the British immediately put a ban on any favourable writing on Siraj-ud-daulah, Tipu Sultan, Tatya Tope or Rani of Jhansi.
However, in some places this was described as ‘vicarious’ nationalism. Unfortunately, the communalists used this vicarious nationalism to propagate their view of Indian history. There was another aspect in which nationalists differed from the communalists in their treatment of the past.
They too made a positive appraisal of ancient Indian society, polity, economy and culture. But they also presented a positive picture of the medieval period, while making a critique of the negative features of both ancient and medieval periods. The nationalist glorification of the past was part of the effort to bolster national self-confidence and pride, especially in the face of the colonial ideological effort to undermine them and create a psychology of inferiority and dependence.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
The Hindu communalists praised or idealized the ancient period in order to contrast it with the fall and decline during the medieval period and thus create anti-Muslim feelings. The nationalists went to the past looking for positive features in order to prove India’s fitness for modern parliamentary democracy, modern civic and political rights, popular representation through elections and self-government.
Nationalist historians like K.P. Jayaswal, RN. Banerjee, B.K. Sarkar, U.N. Ghosal, D.R. Bhandarkar and even the R.C. Mazumdar emphasised the democratic, constitutional, non- despotic and even republican, non-religious and secular, and rational elements of the ancient Indian polity and social life. Thus, in nationalist hands, the glorification of ancient Indian society was a weapon in the anti-imperialist struggle.
Despite its unscientific features and the potential for mischief in a multi-lingual, multi-cultural, multi-religious and multi-caste country, it had a certain historically progressive content. Moreover, the nationalists readily adopted and accepted scientific criteria for the evaluation and the further development of their views. The communalists, on the other hand, used the ancient past to create and consolidate communal feelings.
They also held up for praise some of the most negative features of ancient Indian society and polity. They would also not tolerate the scientific treatment or criticism of any of its aspects. The communalists tended to underplay the role of colonialism and put greater emphasis on the adversarial relationship with the other religious community. They were, in general, critical of the actual national movement and its secularism. While the Hindu communalists declared it to be pro-Muslim, or at least indulging in ‘Muslim appeasement’, the Muslim communalists accused it of being anti-Muslim or at least of being Hindu controlled and therefore of being an instrument of Hindu domination.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
The Hindu communalists were in particular critical of the Moderate nationalists of late 19th century who had initiated the economic critique of colonialism and laid the basis of modern secularism. The only major critique of colonialism that both communalists made was that it had introduced modernity or modern thought based on rationality and science and scientific outlook.
The communalists also defined nationalism not in economic or political terms, as the national movement did, but in cultural terms or as cultural nationalism based on Hindu or Muslim culture. Consequently, they traced modern nationalism to Bankim Chandra or Swami Dayanand or Sayed Ahmed Khan rather than to early national leaders, such as Dadabhai Naoroji, Justice Ranade and Surendranath Banerjee.