Main Ideologist of Imperialist-Colonialist in Historiography Submitted by :Monica Lalmuanpuii Roll no 565

Main Ideologist of Imperialist-Colonialist in      Historiography

Colonial Historiography

Colonial Historiography the first task is to remove a possible source of confusion. The term ‘colonial historiography’ applies to (a) the histories of the countries colonised during their period of colonial rule, and (b) to the ideas and approaches commonly associated with historians who were or are characterised by a colonialist ideology. In British India the term was used in the first sense and only since independence the second meaning of the term has come into prominence. Many of the front rank historians were British colonial officials, and the term colonial history, when it was used at all, was meant to refer to the subject  rather than to the ideology embedded in that history.

India was depicted as a stagnant society, backward civilization and as culturally inferior while Britain was praised as a dynamic country possessing superior civilization and advanced in science and technology. British historical writings as uniformly colonial, since different approaches and interpretative frameworks developed within the colonial school in course of the 19th and early 20^th centuries. However there were certain characteristics common to most of the works :

(i)                 An 'Orientalist' representation of India was common, promoting the idea of the superiority of modern Western civilization; this is a theme recently brought into prominence by Edward Said and others, but the Indian nationalist intelligentsias had identified and criticised this trend in British writings from James Mill onwards.

(ii)               The idea that India had no unity until the British unified the country was commonly given prominence in historical narratives; along with this thesis there was a representation of the eighteenth century India as a 'dark century' full of chaos and barbarity until the British came to the rescue

(iii)             Many late nineteenth century British historians adopted Social Darwinist notions about India; this implied that if history is a struggle between various peoples and could be ipso facto legitimately considered to be superior and as the fittest to rule,

(iv)             India was, in the opinion of many British observers, a stagnant society, arrested at a stage of development; it followed that British rule would show the path of progress to a higher level hence the idea that India needed Pax Britannica

(v)               The mystification of  heroic empire builders and 'Rulers of India' in historical narratives was a part of the rhetoric of imperialism as Eric Stokes has remarked, in British writings on India the focus was on the British protagonists and the entire country and its people were just a shadowy background  

(vi)             Colonial historiography displayed initially a critical stance towards the Indian nationalist movement since it was perceived as a threat to the good work done by the British in India; at a later stage when the movement intensified the attitude became more complex, since some historians showed plain hostility while others were more sophisticated in their denigration of Indian nationalism.

In general, while some of these characteristics and paradigms are commonly to be found in the colonial historians' discourse, it will be unjust to ignore the fact that in course of the first half of the twentieth century historiography out-grew them or, at least, presented more sophisticated versions of them. In essence colonial historiography was part of an ideological effort to appropriate history as a means of establishing cultural hegemony and legitimizing British rule over India.

The term 'colonial historiography' has been used in two senses. One relates to the history of the colonial countries, while the other refers to the works which were influenced by colonial ideology of domination. The histories of India written by James Mill, Mountstuart  Elphinstone, Vincent Smith and many others are pertinent examples of this trend. They established the colonial school of historiography which denigrated the subject people while praising the imperial country.

References:

               MHI-03 Historiography

               IGNOU

Colonial Historiography in a tum hmasak ber chu an thil chawhpawlh hrang hrang tihkiam a ni. Colonial History in a kawh chu  (a) Colonial rule hunlai a ram hrang hrang lo colonised te (b)Historian ho kal dan chu colonialist ngaihdan emaw zirtir dan emaw tanga lo chhuak ani. British India hunah chuan hemi thu hi chikhat in an hmang a, independence zawh hnuah an pakhat zawk chu an hmang lawr chho tan ta ani. Front rank historians kan tih tam zawk chu British colonial officials kan tih ho hi an ni. Tichuan colonial history kan tihin a kawh tak chu subject leh ideology hi ani.

Colonial History tih hi chi hnih in hman a ni a. A pakhat zawk chu Colonial ramte hmanlai chanchin zirna lam a ni a, a dang leh ah cuan midangte hna cu colonial ideology in a influence ani. Heng atana entirna tha tak te chu James Mill te, Mounstuart  Elphinestone te, Vincent Smith leh midang tam tak te in a an ziah ‘The History of India’ kha a ni. Heng mi ho te hian Colonial School of Historiography kan tih te kha an rawn din ani.

India ram hi ram hmasawn lo, hnam finglo leh hnamze hnuaihnung tia sawi thin a ni a, Britain erawh chu ram chak tak, hnam fing leh chungcuang nihna chelhtu leh science leh technology ah pawh changkang  tak tia fak thin an ni ve thung a. British thil hlui zir a ziak mi te chuan 19^thleh 20^th century hma lamah colonial school hmangin approaches chi hrang hrang leh frameworks an lo siam chhuak a. Chung an hnathawh thenkhat te cu:

 1)Khawchhak lam changkanna leh ngaihhlutna dan chawisanna hi thil zir mi te atang pawn a hluar hle a, hei hi tih dan phung thil lar tak Edward Said leh midang ten a an rawn ken luh a ni a, mahse Indian Nationalist mi thiamten James Mill ziak atang tawh khan an sawisel a ni.

2)Ngaihdan pakhatah chuan British in India pumkhata a siam hma chuan India ramaah inpumkhatna a awm lova, he ngaihdan hmang hian kum zabi sawmpariat ah India chu ‘dark century’ buaina tak leh hnam mawl tak  British in a chhanchhuah hma chuan an ni tih ani.

3) Nineteenth century hnu lam daihah chuan British historian chuan Social Darwinist in India ngaihdan a la a, hemi in a ken ber  chu  history ah khan mipui in inlungrual lohna a awm chuan dan an pek sa chu a tha ber leh dan a tan a tlak ber ngaih tur a ni.

4)British observer ngaihdan ah chuan India chu ram hmasawn lo tak a ni a. British khuahkhirhna hnauiah India a awm chuan hmasawnna a hmu a nga, cuvang chuanin India chuan in Pax Britannica a mamawh ani.

5)Hmanlai chanchin lo sawi thin tute in a Lalram ropui tak tak lo din tute chu Eric Stokes a sawi danin lalber  thuneihna vang pakhat a ni a, British ziak mi in India a sawi dan chuan a tum ber  chu British chawisan a India ram leh a mi chengte chu thim a dah ani.

6)Colonial Historiography hian Indian Nationalist movement ah hian hnathawh pawimawh tak mai a nei a, chu chu British in India a thil tha tam tak a tih thuanawp a, a hnuah chuan he movement hi a lo zual sauh a, a chhan chu historians thenkhat ten Indian nationalism an tih hmingchhiat em em laiin a thenin an ti ngam lang lemlo ani.

  Heng thi thenkhat  paradigms te hi colonial historians  ten an sawi ho na a kan hmuh tlangpuii te hi kum zabi sawnhnih leh chanve hma lama historiography khaina hliahkhuh vek a. A awmze ril zawkah chuan historiography chu British in a India chaldelh tak a awh bet  theihna tura tana hmanrua a hman ani.

Colonial History tih hi chi hnih in hman a ni a. A pakhat zawk chu Colonial ramte hmanlai chanchin zirna lam a ni a, a dang leh ah cuan midangte hna cu colonial ideology in a influence ani. Heng atana entirna tha tak te chu James Mill te, Mounstuart  Elphinestone te, Vincent Smith leh midang tam tak te in a an ziah ‘The History of India’ kha a ni. Heng mi ho te hian Colonial School of Historiography kan tih te kha an rawn din ani.