In the early Indian tradition, as the author suggests, there is a lack of the sense of history or at least the act of recordkeeping is missing during this period. However, the author points out several forms of representation of the past in the early Indian texts; for example, in Vedic forms, we see several a which denote the celebration of heroic acts or the akhyana or narasamsi which narrates the life of the hero, etc. “These texts”, as the author points out, “concerned with the past asserted differential truth claims ranging from what really happened to what was imagined” (p71). In the itihasa-purana tradition, we encounter these two words— itihasa and purana, while the former meant 'thus indeed it was', the latter means 'ancient folklore'. …show more content…
In the early phase of colonial modernity, as the author argues, history-writing began by the colonialists broadly under three frameworks- Orientalist, Evangelical, and Anglicist. The author also elaborates how historiography in this period, mostly followed from ideas like oriental despotism in the colonies, village-centric society, caste and racially fragmented society, etc. However, to counter these historical narratives, the nationalists of India started formulating their own history as rational, anti-imperial, and by upholding a glorious past. Despite the fact that in the early phase of nationalist historiography, there had been many confusions regarding methodology, objectivity and identity of the nation, by early twentieth century, this problem was more or less tackled by producing a syncretic culture of past. The author also points out that it is Indian Marxist historiography which brought a 'paradigm shift' in the discipline of history. Historians like DD Kosambi, Romila Thapar etc. challenged colonialist historiography and rather than dynasties, they focused on the transitional economy from tribal land to village settlements, which also gave rise to the practice of caste. Moreover, Indian Marxist historiography emphasised on documents and evidence as the source material. The author also focuses on the Cambridge school on Indian history and points out that the emergence of this school is a response to the nationalist and Indian Marxist historiography. In the mid-twentieth century, historians like John Gallagher and Ronald Robinson made pro-imperialist arguments and argued that “there was a basic continuity in the political and economic structures in the colonies,” and the British tried to rule both by formal and informal means, whichever necessary