SCOPE OF KOSAMBIST PARADIGM IN KERALA

HISTORIOGRAPHY

DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE SREE SANKARACHARYA UNIVERSITY OF SANSKRIT IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR AWARD OF THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN HISTORY UNDER THE SEMESTER SYSTEM.

BY SHAFEEK H. REG. NO. 11283

DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY SREE SANKARACHARYA UNIVERSITY OF

SANSKRIT REGIONAL CENTRE

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APRIL 2009.

Dr. A. Paslithil

Reader in History,

Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit,

Regional Centre,

Thiruvananthapuram.

CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the Dissertation entitled ‘SCOPE OF KOSAMBIST

PARADIGM IN KERALA HISTORIOGRAPHY’ is a bonafide record of

independent research work done by Shafeek H. ( Reg. No.: 11283) under my

guidance and supervision during January-April, 2009 , submitted to the

Department of History, Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit, Regional

Centre, Thiruvananthapuram in partial fulfillment for the award of the

Degree of MASTER OF ARTS IN HISTORY, Faculty of Social Sciences and

that the dissertation has not previously formed the basis for the award of any

other degree, Diploma, Associateship, Fellowship or other title.

Thiruvananthapuram

16-04-2009 Dr. A. Paslithil

DECLARATION

I, Shafeek H, do hereby declare that the dissertation entitled‘SCOPE OF

KOSAMBIST PARADIGM IN KERALA HISTORIOGRAPHY’, submitted to

Department of History, Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit, Regional

Centre, Thiruvananthapuram in partial fulfillment for the award of the

Degree of MASTER OF PHILOSOPHY IN HISTORY, Faculty of Social

Sciences is a bonafide record of research work done by me under the

guidance and supervision of Dr. A. Paslithil, Reader in History, Sree

Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit, Regional Centre,

Thiruvananthapuram and that the dissertation has not previously formed

the basis for the award of any other degree, Diploma, Associateship,

Fellowship or other title.

Place: Date: Shafeek H.

PERFACE

The present dissertation is an attempt to make an analytical study of D. D. Kosambi’s

Indian History, the paradigm that he brought in historiography of India and its scope in

interpreting Kerala history. D. D. Kosambi’s methodology is a Marxist one that brought a

drastic shift in paradigmatic level. His entry into the field of Indian History, thus, was a

great leap in Indian Historical writings.

I have collected almost all relevant materials for this study both primary and secondary in

due course of my study. I consider his own writings as the primary sources. The major

hindrances were the paucity of time as well as the scarcity of books even in the libraries.

Here I have to express my sincere gratitude towards Dr. A. Paslithil, Reader in history,

S.S.U.S, Regional Centre, Thiruvananthapuram, without whose guidance and supervision

I would not complete this research work. His suggestions and other helps are ample and

valuable that I admire him. I am grateful to Dr. S. Sivadasan, the Head of The

Department of History, S.S.U.S, main centre, Kalady, who is remaining as my inspiration

for historical studies and who encouraged me to do this work. I use this occasion to

extend my thanks to Sinitha G. S., Daniel M. and Mohan Prasad, the lecturers in this

centre.

I am also thankful to Sreekanth G. the librarian, S.S.U.S Regional Centre library, who

gave all the books what I need immediately. I also grateful to all staffs of this centre who

sympathetically helped me to fulfill this venture.

I am also thankful to the librarians of the Kerala University Library, Central Library, C.

Achuthamenon Memorial Library and other libraries. My special thanks to my friends,

Aswinbabu, Keerthy, Reynold, Ahil, etc.

SHAFEEK H.

1

INTRODUCTION

HISTORICAL MATERIALISM, which was founded by Karl Marx with

Frederick Engels through the declaration, “the history of all hitherto existing society is

the history of class struggle” 1 in the famous Manifesto of the Communist Party and

the theoretical works like Grundrisse and The German Ideology with their other works

inaugurated a new era of interpretation of history – the era of Materialistic

interpretation of history. It can be defined as the extension and application of the

tenets of dialectical materialism, the laws of the development of nature, in analyzing

and studying the social life, development of society or social formations and in

explaining social phenomena.2 This scientific knowledge has been further enriched

and developed by the contributions made by V.I. Lenin, J.V. Stalin and Mao Tse-tung.

Since the emergence of Marxism as a methodology, Historical Materialism has got

ideological primacy in interpreting the past. The basis of this methodology is the

principle, concrete analysis of concrete conditions.3

1 K. MARX and F. ENGELS, Manifesto of the Communist Party, Progress Publishers, Moscow, p. 40. Henceforth Manifesto 2 J.V. STALIN, “Dialectical And Historical Materialism” in Problems of Leninism, Foreign Languages Press, Peking, 1976, p. 834. 3 V.I. LENIN, “Kammunismus” in Collected Works, Vol.31, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1966, p. 166.

It replaced the old story telling

mode of history, in which a sequential order of heroes, rulers, administers etc.

according to their date is outlined, by the mode of analysis by which inner laws of the

2

development of society have been tried to find and the past, thus, is linked with the

present [and with future].

In India, Marxism and Marxist interpretation of history had been appeared even

in the early part of the second decade of 20th century. Several eminent historians and

politicians, in those days, entered into this school. Most of them were the part of the

Left Movement in the colonial India. M.N. Roy, R.P. Dutt, E.M.S. etc. were

important geniuses who chaired this school, which is still going on and getting more

and more reputation.

The entrance of D.D. Kosambi (1907 – 1966), a mathematical scientist into the

interpretation of India’s past with the tool of Dialectical Materialism or Marxism 4

with a strong definition, “history is the presentation, in chronological order, of

successive developments in means and relations of Production”,5 brought a drastic

shift 6 in the paradigm of historical interpretation. By declaring that Marxism is not a

substitute of thinking but a “tool of analysis”7, he puts a break in the earlier pseudo

Marxist paradigms in India, which treat history as some what the justification for pre-

conceived ideas and jargons. That is so why Dale Riepe called him “father of

Scientific Indian History”.8

4 D.D. KOSAMBI, An Introduction to the Study of Indian History, Popular Prakasan, Bombay, 1996, p. 8. Henceforth Introduction 5 Ibid., p. 1. 6 ROMILA THAPAR, “The Contribution of D.D. Kosambi to Indology” in History And Beyond, Oxford University Press, p. 90. 7 D.D. KOSAMBI, “Marxism And Ancient Indian Culture” in Combined Methods, Op. cit, p. 789. 8 DALE RIEPE, “D.D. KOSAMBI, the father of Scientific Indian History” in Indian Society: Historical Probing: In Memory of D.D. Kosambi edited by R.S. Sharma and V. Jha, http://www.geocities.com/dialecticalmethod/dale.html

3

As far as history of Kerala is concerned, the Marxist interpretation is

developing now in a positive way. It had started even before independence, when this

linguistic region was not set up as a unified state, through the articles and documents

of undivided Communist Party of India (undivided CPI)9

The present study is a double dimensional mission. On the one hand it tries to

synthesis Kosambist Paradigm and on the other hand, it seeks the problems and issues

of Kerala History and scope of Kosambist Paradigm in remedying them. An attempt

. But as a methodology for

interpreting past, it has been used only recently, mainly in the works of E.M.S., K.

Damodaran, C. Achutha Menon, N.E. Balaram etc. Nowadays Kerala possesses much

higher position in this regard. The problem is most of the historians of Kerala under

this school are writing history as swinging towards the understandings of any of Left

Parties, though they make great contributions. In this aspect they are biased and treat

history as justifications of pre-conceived ideas. Another important problem is that

though Materialist historiography has been used, the problems and issues in Kerala

historiography are remaining unsettled. This is partly due to the scarcity of sources

and partly due to the absence of correct use of perspective and methodology. The

Marxist historiographers in Kerala are, to some extent failed to break the old

conceptual frame work and to get primacy over the bourgeois and academic

historiography. Moreover such a drastic shift in paradigm brought by Kosambi is not

only totally absent but not properly addressed in Kerala History.

9 The term ‘undivided’ is used to denote the Communist Party of India, which was existed before its split into present day CPI and CPI (M) on 1964.

4

has also been made to analyzing the question as to why the official and non official

historians are trying to ‘assassinate’ Kosambi’s class analysis by putting it into silence.

In the national level several studies have been done to synthesis Kosambi’s

methodology. Recently Economic and Political Weekly (EPW)10 published 10 articles

written by eminent scholars like Romila Thapar, Meera Kosambi, Shereen Ratnagar,

Irfan Habib, Rajan Gurukkal etc. on Kosambi in his Birth Centenary. Not only EPW

but several journals including The Marxist11, Newspapers including The Hindu12 and

websites like Jstor13, Geocities14 etc. have published articles on the same. All studies

provide amble facts and analysis on his contributions. But all of them focus only on

some of his findings or some of the aspects of his methodology. Even the earliest

analysis of Romila Thapar in her “The Contribution of D.D.Kosambi to Indology”15

In Kerala, the studies relating to historiography of Kerala are few in number

which can be counted with fingers. The major studies have been appeared as the

articles written by M.G.S. Narayanan

,

where the paradigm shift brought by Kosambi appears first, is suffering the same

defect though her study puts strong analysis of his contributions and findings in

history as well as in other auxiliary disciplines forward.

16, C.K. Kareem17, K.N. Ganesh18

10 Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 43, No. 30, July 26-Auguest 01, 2008. 11 The Marxist, XXIV 4, Oct.-Dec., 2008. 12 The Hindu, July 31, 2008. 13 www.jstor.org 14 http://www.geocities.com/dialecticalmethod/ 15 ROMILA THAPAR, op. cit., pp. 89-113. 16 M.G.S. NARAYANAN, “Historiography of Kerala: Some Important Issues” in Issues in Kerala Historiography edited by K.K. Kusuman, International centre for Kerala Studies, University of Kerala, 2003, pp. 192-201. 17 C.K. KAREEM, “Kerala Historiography” in Issues in Kerala Historiography, Ibid., pp. 202-208.

and Dr. P.M.

5

Rajan Gurukkal 19. Cultural History of Kerala 20

1. D.D. Kosambi—A Short Profile.

under the editorship of Raghava

Varier and Rajan Gurukkal also tries to analyze the same. Though M.G.S. Narayan

made valuable analyses, he shows a hyper-criticism to Marxist historiography. The

other works laid emphasis on Marxist Historiography but not being out its

methodology systematically. The common nature of all those works is the absence of

laying importance and analysis of Kosambist paradigm. So the present study is a

pioneering one which tries to link Kosambist paradigm and interpretation of Kerala

History so as to highly relevant one.

This paper has been prepared on the basis of analytical and critical perspective.

Comparative methodology of study is also much used in it.

The essence of the proposed study is arranged as 3 chapters in addition to

introduction and conclusion. They are entitled as

2. Kosambist Paradigm — A Synthesis of Marxist Historiography.

3. Problems, Issues and Prospects of Kerala Historiography and Kosambist

Paradigm.

The first chapter tries to give a short biographical sketch of D.D. Kosambi.

This chapter is preparing mainly on the basis of his autobiographical essay ‘Step in

Science’ and on the basis of eye-witness account given by Meera Kosambi, his

18 K.N. GANESH, “Historiographical Trends” in Perspectives of Kerala History edited by P.J. Cherian Kerala Gazetteer, Govt. of Kerala, 1999. 19 P.M.RAJAN GURUKKAL, “Historiographical Antecedents” in Perspectives of Kerala History, Ibid. 20 RAJAN GURUKKAL and M.R. RAGHAVA VARIER (eds.), Cultural History of Kerala, Vol. I, Dept. of Cultural Publications, Govt. of Kerala, 1999.

6

daughter, Romila Thapar, R.P. Nene, A.L. Basham, V.V. Gokale, Daniel Ingalls, and

D.N. Jha, his friends and contemporaries.

The second chapter tries to bring together the Kosambist Paradigm and define

it. It also highlights the debates relating to Kosambist Paradigm and analyzes them.

The third chapter tries to bring out the major problems, issues, debates and so

far prospects of Kerala historiography and to seek remedy for those problems in the

light of Kosambist paradigm.

Hypothetically the present study assumes that Kosambist paradigm is the

synthesis of Marxist Historiography and its development in a higher phase. It has got

universality of defining the interpreting historical problems and phenomena. It can

solve the problems and issues of Kerala historiography. It can also render its service

in perspective and methodological level.

7

8

CHAPTER – I

KOSAMBI– A Short Profile

D.D. Kosambi’s interpretation of Indian history from a Marxist

perspective was path-breaking in a dual sense. It not only

sought to provide an analysis of Indian history as a process as

a district from a mere litany of names and dates …………… but

also contributed to an expansion of the frontiers of historical

materialism itself.21

D.D. Kosambi was born on July 31, 1907 in a Gaud Saraswat Brahmin family

of Kosben in Goa. His family was known for its rigorous standards of learning and

social behaviour.

- PRABHAT PATNAIK

UNTIL RECENTLY Marxism and Marxist historiography had been faced all

round attacks from the scribes of Capitalism, the bourgeois intellectuals and bourgeois

historians. But the contemporary financial crises faced by the World Capitalist system

become the severe blow to them and bring the attention of the world to the sayings of

Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, the founders of scientific communism. Such a

juncture gives us, the students of Indian History, an opportunity to give homage and to

evaluate D.D. Kosambi, the great eminent personality who defended and applied

Marxism in interpreting Indian history.

22

21 PRABHAT PATNAIK, “D.D.Kosambi and the Frontiers of Historical Materialism”, in The Marxist, XXIV 4, October –December 2008, p. 29.

He was a boy who was inherited an insatiable spirit of inquiry, a

22 V.V. GOKHALE, “Damodar Dharmanand Kosambi”, Science and Human Progress: Prof.D.D.Kosambi Commemoration volume, 1974, www.geocities.com/ bhupindersingh2/ddk/intro/gokhale.htm.

9

love of wandering and a sharp, versatile intellect. 23 His father was Acharya

Dharmanand Kosambi, a Buddhist scholar 24 who was teaching Pali at Fergusson

College. Damodar Kosambi’s early schooling was in Pune. In order to do work on

some Pali Buddhist text, Acharya Kosambi was invited to Harvard University as

visiting faculty.25 In this time Acharya took his eleven years old son to the Cambridge

Grammar School. There he spent 8 years for completing his schooling. In January

1926, he was enrolled in Harvard College and he graduated with a brilliant result in

1929. During this time he had learned several languages other than Indian languages

like Greek, Latin, German, French etc. 26

Even though he had finished his graduation he could not get scholarship for

further studies there. It was partly due to the economic depression of the time

So he became a polyglot.

27 and

partly due to his Mathematics professor was unsure of his commitment to the subject,

given “his tendency to traverse over a wide field of disciplines” (with his father’s

encouragement).28

23 Ibid. 24 MEERA KOSAMBI, “D.D.Kosambi: The Scholar and the Man”, in Economic and Political Weekly, Vol.43, No.30, July 216 – August 01, 2008, p. 34. 25 Ibid. 26 D.D. KOSAMBI, “Steps in Science”, in Science, Society & Peace, Academy of Political and Social Studies, Pune, 1986, p. 2; And see D.N.JHA, “Damodar Dharmanand Kosambi: A Scholar Extraordinaire”, in The Marxist, Op. cit. p. 3. 27 SUNIL P. ILAYIDAM, “D.D.Kosambi: Charithramezhuthile Viplavangal”, in Mathrubhumi Weekly, August 5-11, 2007, p. 50. 28 MEERA KOSAMBI, Op.cit., p. 34.

On his return to India in 1929, Kosambi joined the mathematics

faculty of the Benaras Hindu University, which was founded by Madan Mohan

Malaviya (who was a friend of Dharmanand’s). Here he could not go on his

10

profession since the ideological difference 29

In 1932 he decided to settle down at Pune as Professor of mathematics at the

Ferguson College where his father had earlier taught Pali. There he spent fourteen

years. He also faced certain difficulties mainly the difficulty raised from a clash of

“two radically different academic systems and cultures – Harvard and Pune.

Ultimately Kosambi had to leave the college because of “examination-ridden system

and uninspiring standards of education”.

with Malaviya who was a strong Hindu

nationalist. After that he worked in Aligarh Muslim University.

30

He joined the newly established Tata Institute of Fundamental Research [TIFR]

in Mumbai in 1946. Actually he was invited to the Institute by well known scientist

Homi Bhabha, the then director of the institute. Because of his strong devotion to

humanism, Kosambi also failed to maintain harmony with the management of Institute

especially with Homi Bhabha. There were mainly three reasons. Homi Bhabha’s

change as a “managerial scientist” who mainly focused on institution building rather

than focusing research works was the first. Second was ideological i.e., Capitalist-

Marxist ideological differences and third was their different opinion on the question of

using atomic energy. Kosambi always opposed the usage of atomic energy and was in

favour of using solar energy for facing energy crisis. Bhabha was involved in

developing atomic energy in India.

31

29 Ibid., p. 35. 30 Ibid. 31 Ibid., p. 36.

Jawaharlal Nehru supported these efforts of

11

Bhabha and declared that independent India would use “the atomic force” to “defend

herself”.32

In 1964, he was appointed as the scientist emeritus by Council for Scientific

and Industrial Research. He also joined with the Maharastra Association for the

Cultivation of Science at Pune. At the same time, Major General E.B. Habibullah,

Commandant of the National Defence Academy at Khadakwasala near Pune, invited

him to found the Archaeological Society in the Academy as the part of the “hobbies”

section.

In 1962, he left the Institute due to his high value of humanism.

33

Since 1950 Kosambi was participating in the World Peace Council. In June

1955, he headed the Indian delegation to the World Peace Conference at Helsinki,

Finland, which was chaired by the famous French Nobel-laureate Frederic Joliot-

Curie, and attended by J.D. Bernal, the author of Science in History. A.L. Basham

said that Kosambi seemed to have “only three interests, which filled his life to the

exclusion of all others – ancient India, in all its aspects, mathematics and the

preservation of peace.”

34

D.D. Kosambi was basically a mathematician. According to J.D. Bernal,

mathematics was “his main contribution to science, particularly in the field of

On June 29, 1966, death overtook that legendary life in the

form of myocardial infract.

AS A MATHEMATICIAN

32 ANIKET ALAM, “National Interest’ Not the Issue of Nuclear Deal”, in Economic and Political Weekly, September 27, 2008, p. 14. 33 MEERA KOSAMBI, Op. cit, p. 34. 34 A.L. BASHAM, “Baba”: A Personal Tribute”, in Indian Society: Historical Probing; In Memory of D.D.Kosambi, ICHR, New Delhi, p. 18. Also visit the site www.geocities.com/dialecticalmethod.ddk.html

12

statistics and stochastic theory”.35 About 20 years of his works lay in tensor analysis

and path-geometry. 36 When we go through the list of books and articles of Kosambi,

that is prepared by Gokhale,37 a friend and colleague of Kosambi, we can understand

his range of knowledge that traverses from Mathematics to the Indian culture. Among

those article most of them are dedicated to mathematics, mainly to statistics and to

path-geometry. The term path-geometry was coined by himself.38

He had published several articles in various magazines on mathematics and

statistics. “Precession of an Elliptical Orbit” (1930), “Geometrie Differentielle et

Calcul des Variation” (1932), “The Classifications of Integers” (1933), “Path-Spaces

of Higher Order” (1936), “Path-geometry and Cosmogony” (1936), “The Tensor

Analysis of Partial Differential Equations” (1939), “Path-Geometry and Continuous

Groups” (1952) etc. were famous articles among them.

39

Though his main articles are dealing with mathematics he had published a

paper on genetics, which became very famous in the name “the Kosambi formula for

chromosome mapping”.

He won several prizes. In

1934 he won the first Ramanujan Memorial Prize. In 1947, a special Bhabha prize

also went to him.

40

35 J.D.Bernal, “D.D.Kosambi”, in Science and Human Progress, op. cit. p. 331. 36 MEERA KOSAMBI, op. cit. p. 37. 37 V.V. GOKHALE, Op. cit. 38 D.D. KOSAMBI, “Step in Science”, Op. cit., p. 2. 39 V.V. GOKHALE, Op. cit. 40 MEERA KOSAMBI, Op. cit.

It became widely used by the professional scientists. It was

a development from them existing chromosome theory of heredity. N.R. Bhat, an

agricultural scientist has experimented Kosambi’s theory and found it to have a good

13

fit. According to Bhat, “the Kosambi formula”, though “largely an intelligent

empiricism”, is the only one so far which gives satisfactory additive estimates of map

lengths irrespective of the kinds of organisms and the lengths of their chromosomes

on which recombination data are gathered.41

Why we, the students of history study a well known mathematician is the

recognition that he was a great Indologist who changed Indian historical writing from

top to bottom. Romila Thapar says that “Kosambi’s acknowledged status as an

Indologist was the more remarkable in that by profession he was a mathematician.

Meera Kosambi, daughter of Kosambi gives a clear picture on his travels

throughout the world. In 1948-49, he was United Nation’s Educational, Scientific and

Cultural organizations (UNESCO) fellow to the US and UK for electronic calculating

machine research. In 1949, he went to Chicago as a visiting professor in path-

geometry. He also visited Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton where he met

Albert Einstein and had extensive discussions with him. He visited Soviet Union in

1955 as he was invited to Soviet Academy of Science to lecture and to attend their

first conference on the peaceful use of atomic energy. Academia Sinica (Beijing,

China) had also invited him to suggest statistical methods for the forecasting of food-

crops and quality control in industry.

AS AN INDOLOGIST

42

1930’s - He was mainly a mathematician

We can systematize his transition from mathematician to a historian as follows.

41 Ibid. 42 ROMILA THAPAR, Op. cit, p. 91.

14

1940’s - His interest in Indology started. Occasional papers

on this subject were started to appear.

1950’s to 1966 - Most of his works on Indology and early history of

India were brought out.

His entrance to Indian history was not a conscious one. From the study of

numismatics and linguistic studies of Sanskrit Literature with the interest of Marxism

he reached in to Indology. Let’s quote his own words;

“Study of the records meant some mastery of Sanskrit, of which I had absorbed a little

through the pores without regular study. Other pre-occupations made it impossible to

spend as much time as the average student on the classical idiom. So, the same method

was adopted as for study of statistics: to take up a specific work, of which the simplest

was Bhartrhari’s epigrams (Subhashitas). The Supposed philosophy of Bhartrhari, as

glorified by the commentators, was at variance with his poetry of frustration and escape.

By pointing this out in an essay which made every Sanskritist who read it shudder, I had

fallen Into Indology, as it were, through the roof. 43

He wrote and published five books and several articles on Indian History and

Culture and several articles. The books are An Introduction to the study of Indian

History (1956), Exasperating Essays: Exercises in the dialectical method (1957),

Myth & Reality: Studies in the formation of Indian Culture (1962), The Culture &

Why he himself introduced as indologist is very remarkable. In the academic level he

did not study history. In that sense he was an alien to this subject. But through above

mentioned way he entered the study of culture and history of India.

43 D.D. KOSAMBI, “Steps in Science”, Op. cit. p.9

15

Civilization of Ancient India in Historical Outline (1965) and Indian Numismatics

(1981). Almost all articles written by him got much impression from historians.

Among them “Combined methods in Indology”, articles on Vedic tribes, Brahmin

Gothras, on cultural studies, “The Basis of Ancient Indian History” I and II, “On a

Marxist Approach to Indian Chronology”, “Stages of Indian History”, “Marxism and

Ancient Culture”, “On the Development of Feudalism in India”, “Primitive

Communism” etc. were the most important. All his works constitute the Historical

Materialism of India. After his death, Academy of Political and Social Science at

Pune compiled some of his articles and published them as a book under the title,

Science, Society & Peace, which uncover the Unity of Nature and Society as a book.

Another anthology of his major articles is published by Oxford University Press under

the title, Combined Methods in Indology and Other Writings in 2002 under the

editorship of Brajadulal Chattopadhyaya.

D.D. KOSAMBI ON NUCLEAR WEAPONS AND

ATOMIC ENERGY Nuclear weapons and Atomic Energy are the burning questions that are being faced by

present day world. He foresaw and tried to deal these ‘burning’ questions44 not on the

basis of ‘national interest’45

44 D.D. KOSAMBI, “Nuclear Warfare: The Real Danger”, in Science, Society & Peace, Op. cit., p. 83 45 ANIKET ALAM, Op. cit., p. 14.

that raised by the Left Parties and BJP nowadays but

entirely on the basis of great humanism and proletarian class stand. He severely

opposed the use of nuclear weapon. According to him;

16

“Nuclear weapons are much more dangerous to use than the conventional…… the

record number of deaths from a single conventional bomb was during the Japanese

invasion of China, when an aviator unloaded in a desperate effort to save himself and

killed nearly 700 people…… The Hiroshima bomb killed about a thousand times this

number. A 50 megaton weapon could wipe out the largest city in the world with its

suburbs, causing from 8 to 15 million immediate deaths. In addition, there is a question

of side effects, the nuclear fallout. In 1954, the weapons available if dropped on Delhi

when the not winds was blowing, would not only have wiped out our capital, but would

have killed every living creature and damaged all vegetation within a belt 150 miles

wide, stretching from Delhi to beyond Culcutta. You can calculate the damage of

yourself.”46

“Then there is the question of byproducts [of uranium]. Animal byproducts are good

fertilizer...… In industrial countries, the average temperature over cities goes up…. due

to the use of coal…. No one knows where to put the radio active wastes from uranium

piles…. This is best brought out by the effects of atom-bomb tests….. the prestige of

He also opposed the use of Atomic energy. It was not only on the basis of huge

cost but also on the basis of dangerous of materials and their byproducts and also on

the basis of abuse of the same material. He was ready to admit all energies other than

atomic energy, which is truly dangerous to the human kind. He always prefers solar

energy to remedying the energy scarcity. Nowadays the science is facing the problem

how to eliminate the byproducts and wastes of Atomic energy. He said;

46 Ibid., pp. 84-85.

17

having atomic power stations does not compensate the extra expenditure or the extra

danger involved.”47

In is opinion, India as a developing nation in which most of population

belonging to poor should use solar energy for meet energy need. “It seems”, he

argues “to me that research on the utilization of solar radiation, where the fund costs

nothing at all, would be of immense benefit to India, whether or not atomic energy is

used”

48

47 D.D. KOSAMBI, “Atomic Energy of India”, in Science, Society & Peace, ibid., pp. 102-103. 48 Ibid. p. 103

18

CHAPTER – 2

KOSAMBIST PARADIGM –A Synthesis of Marxist Historiography

Men make their own history but they do not make it just as they

please. They do not make it under circumstances chosen by

themselves, but under circumstances directly encountered,

given and transmitted from the past.49

KOSAMBIST PARADIGM can be defined as the Marxist methodological

perspective that can be used not only to interpret the history but also to change it as

Marx said that the point is to change the world than to interpret it in various ways.

- KARL MARX

50.

Kosambism is the system of Kosambi’s views, method and teachings.51 He was a

well known Marxist scholar who developed Historical Materialism52

The Marxist stream of historical writing had been started in India before she

got ‘freedom’ from the colonial yoke, since the second decade of 20th century. Mainly

the leaders of undivided CPI had started this stream. M.N. Roy’s India in Transition

can be considered as the pioneer effort in this way. After that several similar efforts

to a higher phase

by applying it into the soil of India.

49 KARL MARX, “The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte”, in Selected Works of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Vol. I, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1973, p. 398. Henceforth Selected Works M.E. 50 KARL MARX, “Theses On Feuerbach”, in Selected Works M.E., Ibid., p. 15. 51 Here the model of Lenin’s definition of Marxism is used to define the term ‘Kosambism’. See V.I.LENIN, “Karl Marx”, Selected Works of Lenin, Vol. 1, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1976, p. 19. 52 Prabhat Patnaik said that Kosambi’s Contributions expand the frontiers of historical Materialism. (See PRABHAT PATNAIK, Op. cit.). Actually what has done by Kosambi is the development of Historical materialism in a higher phase.

19

had been done but failed. M.N. Roy’s book was also not get sufficient attention. It

was because this book was appeared as the part of Roy’s political work. But it paved

the way for a hermeneutic turn 53

“This book”, he wrote in the preface to the first edition of An Introduction to the Study

of Indian History, “does not pretend to be a history of India. It is merely a modern

approach to the study of Indian history…”

that brought by Kosambi by the Publishing his

classical work An Introduction to the Study of Indian History.

Kosambi never claimed that his works as full-fledged writings on India, though

others acknowledged them as the classical matured works of Indian historical writings.

What was his intention is that to bring a ‘modern approach’ to the study of Indian

history.

54

This modern approach is nothing but Marxist approach. He challenged all the

previous models of historical writing with the tool of Marxism. At the same time he

also challenged the blind application of Euro-schematic style

55 scheme of pseudo

Marxist interpretation of Indian history. He cannot patience with those who are trying

to malign, misuse or vulgarize Marxism, the science that he respects the most. This

can be seen in his treatments of Karl A. Wittfogel 56 who maligned Socialism as

despotism, of D.A. Suleikin 57

53 RAJAN GURUKKAL, “The Kosambi Effect: A Hermeneutic turn that shook Indian Historiography”, in Economic and Political Weekly, Vol.43, No.30, July 26-August 01, 2008, pp. 89-96. 54 D.D. KOSAMBI, Introduction, Op. cit., p. xi. 55 Euro-schematic style means argument of social developments only through four modes of production, Primitive Communism-Slavery-Feudalism-Capitalism. 56 D.D. KOSAMBI, “The Basis of Despotism, in Combined Methods, Op. cit., pp. 797-801. 57 D.D. KOSAMBI, “On a Marxist Approach to Indian Chronology”, in Combined Methods, Ibid., pp. 49-56.

who dangerously misused Marxism to outline Indian

20

Chronology and of S.A. Dange58

What is historical materialism? It is a science of social development. Actually

it was appeared as the harmonious, integral world outlook of the working class with

dialectical materialism. Historical Materialism is the extension of the Principles of

dialectical materialism to the study of social life, an application of the principles of

dialectical materialism to the phenomena of the life of society, to the study of society

and of its history.

who was trying to thrust slavery system into the

Indian History.

MATERIALISTIC CONCEPTION OF HISTORY

– General Outline In order to get full and clear idea of Kosambist Methodological perspective,

we have firstly to know Materialistic conception of history or Historical Materialism

from which Kosambist Paradigm has logically emerged. The basic tenets of historical

materialism were laid by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels during the second half of

19th century.

59 It is the general theory of motive forces and the laws of social

change,60

“The discovery of the materialist conception of history”, wrote Lenin, “or more

correctly, the consistent Continuation and extension of materialism into the domain of

social phenomena, removed the two chief short-coming in earlier historical theories. In

the first place, the latter at best examined only the ideological motives in the historical

that developed by Marx and Engels.

58 D.D. KOSAMBI, “Marxism and Ancient Indian Culture”, in Combined Methods, ibid., pp. 784-789. 59 J.V. STALIN, “Dialectical And Historical Materialism”, Op. cit., p. 835. 60 MAURICE CORNFORTH, “Historical Materialism”, in Dialectical Materialism, National Book Agency Private Limited, Calcutta, 1997, p. 143.

21

activities of human beings, without investigating the origins of those motives, or

ascertaining the objective laws governing the development of the system of social

relations, or seeing the roots of these relations in the degree of development reached by

material production; in the second place, the earlier theories did not embrace the

activities of the masses of population, whereas historical materialism made it possible

for the first time to study with scientific accuracy the social conditions of the life of the

masses and the changes in those conditions.”61

As soon as the materialistic conception of history by which “the active life-process is

described, history ceases to be a collection of dead facts as it is with the empiricists…

or an imagined activity of imagined subjects, as with the idealists.”

62

Before Marx, the materialist including Feuerbach believed that materialism and

history diverge completely.

63 But Marx placed the study of the development of

society on the materialistic basis. In order to analyze the historical phenomena to find

out the laws that govern the development of society he used dialectics. Thus we can

say that the Marxist method of cognize the material and historical phenomena is

dialectical and its interpretation of them, its conception of these phenomena, its theory,

is materialistic.64

Concept of Mode of Production and its international contradiction

Historiography had for a long period searched for the causative or determining

forces of the social development. The idealistic view of history always search for the

61 V.I. LENIN, “Karl Marx”, in Selected Works of Lenin, Op. cit., pp. 24-25. 62 KARL MARX and FREDERICK ENGELS, “Feuerbach: Opposition of the Materialistic and Idealistic Outlook”, in Selected Works M.E., Op. cit., pp. 25-26. Henceforth “Feuerbach” 63 Ibid., p.30. 64 J.V. STALIN, Op. cit., p. 835.

22

external or outside forces of the society. But the Materialistic conception of history

logically answer to this question that the productive forces are the chief motive force

of social developments. By these productive forces Man interact with the nature.

That is so why Benjamin Franklin, the eighteenth century US politician and inventor

defined Man as a “tool-making Animal”.65

“Men can be distinguished from animals by consciousness… anything else you like.

They themselves begin to distinguish themselves from animals as soon as they begin

to produce their means of subsistence…. By producing their means of subsistence

men are indirectly producing their actual material life.”

Marx and Engels said,

66

That is so why we can say that mode of production means method of human society

for producing and exchanging their means of subsistence, in essence, for producing

their actual material life. This mode of production is also a definite form of activity of

the individuals, a definite form of expressing their life, a definite mode of life on their

part.”

67

Mode of production historically is constituted by the productive forces that has

already been explained above and relations of production. What is the forces of

production? The Mankind must first of all eat, drink, and have shelter and clothing,

the production of immediate material means of subsistence.

68

65 MICK BROOKS, “Historical Materialism”, see, http://visualwikipedia.com/en/Marxist_historiography 66 KARL MARX and FREDERICK ENGELS, “Feuerbach”, Op. cit., p.20. 67 Ibid. 68 FREDERICK ENGELS, “Speech at the graveside of Karl Marx”, Selected Works M.E., Vol.3, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1973, p.162.

In order to produce this

means of subsistence, instruments are necessary. But the instruments do not produce

23

anything by themselves. So man is necessary. The forces of production, therefore,

consist of a) the instruments of production and b) the people with their production-

experience and skills who use these instruments.69

The people can make and use the instruments of production and exercise their

production experiences and skills only through entering into definite mutual relations

with each other by which they are associated and organized in the process of social

production.

70 In this process the people must enter into social relationships, not only

with the one another,71 but also with the means of production.72

In the mode of production, the relations of production are “correspond to the

definite stage of development of their material productive forces”.

Means of production

is something more than the instruments of production. It is some total of all those

means of production including not only instruments but also land, raw materials,

buildings etc.

73 The economic

structure of the society is constituted by the sum up of all these relations of production.

But in a certain stage of the development of society these two elements of mode of

production will come into contradiction. “From form of the development of the

productive forces, these relationships are transformed into their fetters. Then an epoch

of social revolution opens”.74

69 MAURICE CORNFORTH, Op. cit., p.167. 70 Ibid. 71 KARL MARX, “Wage, Labour and Capital”, Quoted by J.V.STALIN, Op. cit., p.857. 72 MAURICE CORNFORTH, Op. cit., p.167. 73 KARL MARX, Contribution, Op. cit., p.4. 74 Ibid.

24

Concept of Social Being and Social Consciousness

As we say the philosophy of Marxism is Materialism. Materialism always

seeks to answer the question of relation of thinking to being. Materialism opposes

idealism which considers the independency of idea from matter. The basic teachings

of Materialism in opposition to idealism are;

1. Materialism teaches that the world is by its very nature, material that

everything which exists comes into being on the basis of Material causes,

arises and develops in accordance with the laws of motion of matter.

2. Materialism teaches that matter is objective reality existing outside and

independent of the mind; and the far from the mental existing in separation

from the material, everything mental or spiritual is a product of material

process.

3. Materialism teaches that the world and its laws are fully knowable, and that

while much may not be known there is nothing which is by nature

unknowable.75

When we bring these materialist principles to the study of social phenomena

we can understand that the source of production of ideas, of conception or of

consciousness is the material production of life. So, “conceiving, thinking, the mental

intercourse of men, appear at this stage as the direct efflux of their material

behaviour.

76

75 MAURICE CORNFORTH, Op. cit., oo. 26-27. 76 KARL MARX and FREDERICK ENGELS, “Feuerbach, Op. cit., pp.24-25.

From this Marx and Engels conclude that “Life is not determined by

25

consciousness, but consciousness by life”.77

“In the social production of their means of existence, men enter into definite, necessary

relations which are independent of their will, productive relationship which correspond

to a definite stage of development of their material productive forces. The aggregate of

those productive relations constitutes the economic structure of society, the real basis on

which a juridical and political superstructure arises and to which definite forms of

social consciousness correspond. The mode of production of the material means of

existence conditions the whole process of social, political and intellectual life. It is not

consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, it is their social

being that determines their consciousness……… with the change in the economic

foundation the whole superstructure is more or less rapidly transformed. In considering

such [social] revolution it is necessary always to distinguish between the material

revolution in the economic conditions of production, which can be determined with

scientific accuracy and the juridical, political, religious, aesthetic or philosophic – in a

word, ideological forms wherein men become conscious of this conflict and fight it

out.

From this understanding Max and Engels

logically conceptualize that;

78

77 Ibid., p.25. 78 KARL MARX, Contribution, Op. cit., pp. 3-4 [Emphasis added].

From this view we can say that every society has tow parts,

a] Basis — Economic Basis i.e. economic structure of society, the sum

total of the relations of production. [Not the productive forces!!]

26

b] Superstructure — Social ideas, social organizations and institutions and

ideological relations.79

The basis gives rise to superstructure, which develops on a definite basis and is

determined by it. After the establishment of the superstructure that correspondence to

the basis, if any changes take place in basis, it will not immediately reflect in the

superstructure. Therefore there may be a partial lack of correspondence between

superstructure and basis. The superstructural changes may lag behind the changes in

economic basis.

Here the term “ideological relation” is used in a broad sense

which includes relations that are political, juridical, religious, aesthetic or philosophic.

80

Theory of Class-Struggle

Does the superstructure act upon basis? Yes, the superstructure has a reciprocal

influence on the basis. The superstructure is always in motion, i.e. active. When a

new superstructure is brought by the basis, it helps basis to take shape, develop,

strengthen and extend its longevity. Another important matter is that when the mode

of production has become obsolete, the superstructure helps to keep it in existence. As

obsolete superstructure seeks to preserve the obsolete system and to prolong its

existence.

Marxist historiography is some way considered as the “arch of world history”

that reaches from classless primitive communist society to the communist society of

79 D.I.CHESNOKOV, Historical Materialism, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1969, p. 274. 80 Ibid., p. 279.

27

future.81

“Our epoch, the epoch of the bourgeoisie, possess, however, this distinctive

feature, it has simplified the class antagonisms. Society as a whole is more and more

splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each

other: Bourgeoisie and Proletariat.”

That Marxist historiography’s declaration, World history as “the history of

class struggle”, paved the way for a new approach to the history, the approach of class

analysis. It was started by Marx and Engels themselves by publishing Manifesto of

Communist Party in 1948. According to them,

“the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggle. …oppressor

and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted,

now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each timed ended, either in a revolutionary re-

constitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes….

“The modern bourgeois society that has sprouted from the ruins of feudal

society has not done away with class antagonisms. It has but established new classes,

new conditions of oppression, new forms of struggle in place of the old ones.

82

These findings of class analysis became possible only by the application of

Materialistic dialectics in the study of history of society. This elevated Marxist

historiography into the rank of science of society. This classical explanation of class

struggle promulgated by the greatest geniuses of Marxism was appeared before the

81 ERNEST NOLTE, “The Relationship between ‘Bourgeois’ and ‘Marxist’ Historiography, History and Theory, Vil.14, No.1, Feb., 1975, p. 58, [Emphasis added] 82 KARL MARX and FREDERICK ENGELS, Manifesto of the Communist Party, Op. cit., pp. 40-41.

28

coming of Lewis Henry Morgan’s 83 study on primitive society in which “the inner

organization of primitive communistic society” 84

Actually class struggle was not the new findings of Marx. It has been already

found by French Sociologists and historians like Thierry, Guizot, Mognet and

Thiess.

was uncovered. After the

publication of Morgan’s Ancient Society they exclude primitive communist society

from the class antagonisms. Engels wrote;

“…(ever since the dissolution of the primeval communal ownership of land) all history

has been a history of class struggle, of struggles between exploited and exploiting,

between dominated and dominating classes at various stages of social development; that

his struggle, however, has now reached a stage where the exploited and oppressed class

(the proletariat) can no longer emancipate itself from the class which exploits and

oppresses it (the bourgeoisie), without at the same time for ever freeing the whole of

society from exploitation, oppression and class struggle.”

85 What Marx did as new is that he proved: 1) that the existence of classes is

only bound up with particular historical phases in the development of production, 2)

that the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat, 3) that

this dictatorship itself only constitutes the transition to the abolition of all classes and

to a classless society.86

83 Lewis Henry Morgan was a prominent American anthropologist his famous work is Ancient Society or Researches in the Lines of Human Progress from Savagery through Barbarism to Civilization. 84 KARL MARX and FREDERICK ENGELS, Manifesto, Op. cit., p. 40. 85 V.I. LENIN, “Karl Marx”, Op. cit., p. 26. 86 KARL MARX, “Marx to J.Weydemeyer” (Letter), Selected Works M.L., Vol. I, Op. cit., p.258.

29

Marx and Engels drew the outline of four social formations in history among

which three class-divided societies and their inner class struggle and primitive

communist society which was the first classless society. They are slaves and slave-

owners in slavery society which was the first class society in Europe, lords and serfs

in feudal society and Bourgeoisie and Proletariat in the modern capitalist society.

According to them except capitalism all societies carries different classes and social

groups other than fundamental classes. In capitalism the number of classes reduced

into two and the entire society has been divided into two major hostile camps –

Bourgeoisie and Proletariat.

What constitutes and distinguishes classes is the places they occupy in social

production and consequently, the relation in which they stand to the means of

production 87 from which the differences in income, habits, mentality and so on

arises88

“…large groups of people which differ from each other by the place they occupy in a

historically definite system of social production, by their relations… to means of

production… classes are group of people one of which may appropriate the labour of

another, owing to the different places they occupy in the definite system of social

economy.”

It means what position they take to appropriate the share of surplus created by

the society as a whole. Consequently Lenin defines classes as

89

87 V.I. LENIN, Vulgar Socialism and Narodism Quoted by Mauristornforth, Op. cit., p. 173. 88 MAURICE CORNSOOLTH, Op. cit., p. 173. 89 V.I. LENIN, “A Great Beginning”, in On Utopian and Scientific Socialism, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1976, p. 157.

30

All class relations are antagonistic since the class struggle are rooted in conflicts of

material interests between different classes i.e. conflicting economic interests arising

from the different places occupied by different classes in social production.

Is Historical Materialism “Economic Determinism”?

To answer this question here quote only two paragraphs of Engels which are

self explanatory.

“According to the materialistic conception of history, the ultimately determining

element in history is the production and re-production of real life. More than that

neither Marx nor I have ever asserted. Hence if somebody twists this into saying that

the economic element is the only determining one, he transforms that proposition into a

meaningless, abstract, senseless phrase. The economic situation is the basis, but the

various elements of the superstructure….. also exercise their influence on the course of

the historical struggle, and in many cases preponderate in determining their form.”90

“We regard economic conditions as the factor which ultimately conditions historical

developments…. Political, juridical, philosophical, religious, literary, artistic, etc.,

development is based on economic development. But all these react upon one another

and also upon the economic basis. It is not that economic condition is the cause and

alone active, while everything else is only a passive effect. There is, rather, interaction

on the basis of economic necessity, which ultimately always asserts itself.

91

90 FREDERICK ENGELS, “Letter to J. Bloch”, in Selected Works M.L., Vol.3, Op. cit., pp. 487-488. 91 FREDERICK ENGELS, “Letter to W. Borgius”, in Selected Works M.L., Vol. 3, Ibid., pp. 502-503.

31

PRE-KOSAMBIST PARADIGMS

Historical Writing, in modern sense, in India had appeared only after the advent

of the British. Before that we had history-like writings from ancient times. Kalhana’s

Rajatarangini, Kalidasa’s Raghuvamsa, Athula’s Mushaka Vamsa etc. are the best

example for this type work. We cannot consider them as history of India or any part

of India or of any sects but as the sources of Indian history, since, as the part of

literary superstructure, these literary pieces reflect, the base, the then means and

relations of production.

After the advent of the British, the Indologists as well as colonialists had

started to treat history as a separate discipline and they started scientific research in

Archaeology, linguistic, philology, epigraphy, numismatic study etc. From this

modern historical writing had been coming into being.

Romila Thapar enumerated three major changes in Paradigm of historical

writing, which are represented by James Mill, Vincent Smith and D.D. Kosambi

respectively.92 James Mill’s History of British India published in early 19th century

put forward the communalistic chronology of India. According to this work India had

passed 3 civilizations, Hindu, Muslim and British of which the earlier two

civilizations were “backward, stagnant and a historic”.93

92 ROMILA THAPAR, “Contribution of D.D. Kosambi to Indology”, Op. cit., p. 89. 93 Ibid.

According to historians this

periodization later paved the way for the emergence of communalism in India.

Vincent Smith’s History of India which was appeared in 1919 was another step. This

32

work gave up sharpness of Mills value judgment. 94

What was Nationalistic historian’s position in the historical writing of India

was to apply “negative value judgment” on pre-British period especially on so-called

Hindu period. They re-named Indian Chronology as Ancient, Medieval and Modern.

But despite the change of nomenclature, the time brackets remained the same

This paradigm started the

chronological presentation of dynasties in which their rise and fall as being the crucial

to the study of Indian history, was also described. Both Mill and Smith had colonial

interests. While Mill had to justify the conquest of British, Smith had to justify the

colonial rule of British.

95 i.e.,

Ancient as Hindu, Medieval as Muslim and Modern as British. But in the

paradigmatic level national historians follow the same dynastic and chronological

concerns. 96

Kosambi used Marxism as the frame work of all his studies that include both

history and his original subject, Mathematics. He declared himself as a Marxist. So

his world outlook was Materialism. He said that “my treatment of the phenomenon is

Only ideological aspect seems to be changed from Colonialism to

Nationalism.

KOSAMBI’S MARXIST PERSPECTIVE ON HISTORY

94 Ibid., pp. 89-90. 95 ROMILA THAPER, The Penguin History of Early India, From the Origins to AD 1300, Penguin Books, New Delhi, p. 18. Henceforth Penguin History of Early India 96 ROMILA THAPAR, “Contribution, D.D. Kosambi to Indology, Op. cit., p. 90.

33

purely materialistic.”97

“The present approach implies a definite theory of history known as dialectical

materialism, also called Marxism, after its founder….. For all that, the theoretical basis

remains Marxist — as I understand the method.”

He was not mere a materialist but a Dialectical and Historical

Materialist. This can be assumes from his following words.

98

In a letter to his old friend Daniel Ingalls, an Indologist at Harvard, he wrote in 1953,

“the world is divided into three groups: (1) swearing by Marxism, (2) swearing at

Marxism, (3) indifferent, i.e., just swearing…… I belong to (1), you and your

colleagues to (2). ”

99 His adherence to Marxism can also see in his dedication of his

critical study of Satakatrayam of Bhartrhari to the great Marxist teachers, Marx,

Engels and Lenin.100

“The essential is the method followed [in this book], which is the method of dialectical

materialism, called Marxism after the genius who first developed its theory and used it

systematically as a tool.”

When we go through his preface to Exasperating Essays, it would not be an

exaggeration if he is to be called as dialectical materialist theoretician. He said that

101

In this preface he explained Materialistic theory and the laws of dialectics, i.e. mater

continuously changes and develops, negation of negation, internal contradiction, the

97 DD.KOSAMBI, “The Scientific Attitude And Religion”, in Science, Society & Peace, Op. cit., p. 52. 98 D.D.KOSAMBI, Introduction, Op. cit., pp. 8-12. 99 DANIEL INGALLS, “My Friendship with D.D. Kosambi”, in Indian Society: Historical Probing, Op. cit., pp. 2-33. 100 Quatedd by SUNIL P.ILAYIDAM, Op. cit., p.47. See also BRAJADULAL CHATTOPADHYAYA, “Introduction”, Combined Methods, Op. cit., p. xxx. 101 D.D. KOSAMBI, Exasperating Essays, Peoples’ Book house, Poona, 1957, p.1.

34

changes from quantitative into quantitative changes and vice versa, etc. 102 His

explanation of the principals of dialectical materialism is reminiscing Engels.103

According to him Historical Materialism, “a definite theory of history” is the

frame work to interpret Indian history.

Not

only he explains the dialectical Materialism but also explain the relations of nature

and society and historical Materialism. In this preface he challenged those who attack

Marxism as naming it as an outmoded theory. He gave blows to them by brining

scientific findings of Gauss Faraday, Darwin etc. By doing this he uncover his

intellectual realm of vast knowledge.

104 He quotes long passage from Marx’s

preface to Critique of Political Economy as an excellent theory from which he got the

theoretical basis to interpret India’s past. He reiterates the same passage several

times.105 In accordance with that Marxist understanding he defined history as the

presentation, in chronological order, of successive developments in the means and

relations of production.106

102 Ibid., pp. 1-4. 103 These basic tenets of dialectical Materialism were clearly explained by Engels in his Dialectics of Nature. See ENGELS, Dialectics of Nature, National Book Agency 104 RAJAN GURUKKAL, “The Kosambi Effect: A Hermeneutic Turn that Shook Indian Historiography”, in Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 43, No.30, July 26-August 01, 2008, p. 89. 105 See D.D. KOSAMBI, Introduction, Op. cit., p. 9; and see “Stages of Indian History”, Op. cit., p. 57. 106 D.D. KOSAMBI, Introduction, Op. cit., p.1; and “Stages of Indian History”, Op. cit., p. 58.

35

In earlier he used successive ‘changes’107

“An aggregate of human beings constitutes a society when, and only when, the people

are in some way interrelated. The essential relation is not kinship but much wider;

namely, that developed through production and mutual exchange of commodities.

The particular society is characterized by what it regards as necessary; who gathers or

produces the things, by what implements; who lives off the production of others, and

by what right, divine or legal – cults and laws are social by products; who owns the

tools, the land, sometimes the body and soul of the producer; who controls the

disposal of the surplus and regulates quantity and form of the supply. Society is held

together by bonds of production. Far from destroying human values, materialism

shows how they are related to contemporary social conditions, and to the prevalent

concept of value.”

. Later he changed in accordance

with the Marxist understandings of social formations. He explained social

development,

108

According to him History is not the ‘succession of outstanding megalomanic

names and imposing battle’ and if it is, then Indian history cannot be written. As far

as Kosambi is concerned, to write history means the understanding of “whether a

given people had the plough or not them to know of the name of their king.”

109

107 In his famous essay ‘Steps in Science’ he defined history as the development in chronological order of successive changes in the means and relations of production. See D.D.KOSAMBI “Steps in Science”, Op. cit., p. 10. 108 D.D. KOSAMBI, Introduction, Op. cit., pp. xii-xiii. 109 D.D. KOSAMBI, Culture and Civilization of Ancient India in Historical Outline, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1965, p. 10. Henceforth Culture and Civilization

By

following Marxism, Kosambi declares that “Social organizations cannot be more

36

advanced than the instruments of production will allow….”110 Thus he laid Central

emphasis on forces of production as that the motive force of development of society.

He underlines the centrality of plough and discovers economic practices, ideas and

institutions indicative of a transformed society in the course of critical analysis of

ancient Indian literary texts, but hardly seeks to interpret change by problematising the

incompatibility between forces and relations of production.111

Recently Mathrubhumi, a famous weekly in Malayalam published one article

of K.N. Panikkar, “Contemporary relevance of Kosambi.”

He is also always upholding the class struggle as he was a Marxist. According

to him study of class society means analysis of the differences between the interests of

the class on top and of the rest of the people.

112

“…archaeology alone”, Kosambi said, “can supply any reliable data for the study of

ancient cultures, particularly those that have left no contemporary, legible, written

In this essay he is trying

to misrepresent Kosambi as a ‘Culturalist’. In his essay he argued that Kosambi by

interpreting the myths and cultural things of India, he tried to understand nature of

means and relations of production. So, according to him Kosambi reciprocated base-

superstructure theory as ‘superstructure-base’ theory. Here what he is doing is

attributing his somersault upon Kosambi’s head. He never considers Kosambi’s

appeal for combined methods, archaeology, field study to get materials etc. to form

the superstructure of the societies. Let us examine Kosambi’s words.

110 Ibid., pp. 117-118. 111 RAJAN GURUKKAL, “The Kosambi Effect”, Op. cit., p. 90. 112 K.N.PANIKKAR, “Kosambiyude Samakalika Prasakthi”, Mathrubhumi, February 22-30, 2009.

37

records. It is a completely materialistic approach, for it tells more than any other

methods as yet at our disposal about the tools of production utilized by many sections of

mankind in the remote past, historical or prehistoric. Ancient written sources are to be

trusted in direct proportion to their concordance with archaeological evidence….”113

Anti-deterministic and Anti-Mechanical approach

If Panikkar gives ear to these words he would not have argued in such a way.

Kosambi never considered Marxism as an Economic determinism. He was

always against deterministic theory. According to him “Marxism is far from

economic determinism which its opponents so often take it to be. For that matter, any

intelligent determinist must discuss ‘conditions’ rather than ‘causes’ and take full

cognizance of the course of historical development” 114

“Economic determinism will not do. It is not inevitable, nor even true, that a given

amount of wealth will lead to a given type of development. The complete historical

process through which the social form has been reached is also of prime importance…

If the superstructure cannot be adjusted during growth, then there is eventual conflict.

Sometime the old form is broken by a revolution in the guise of a reformation.

Sometimes the class that gains by preserving the older form wins, in which case there is

stagnation, degeneracy or atrophy. The early maturity and peculiar helplessness of

Indian society against later foreign invasion bears testimony to this general scheme.”

He was a strong Marxist

scholar who always oppose those who called it as economic determinism. With the

bold stand point of Marxism dialectics he said that;

115

113 D.D. KOSAMBI, “Marxism and Ancient Indian Culture”, Op. cit., p. 786. 114 D.D. KOSAMBI, Introduction, Op. cit., p. 10. 115 D.D. KOSAMBI, Culture and Civilization, Op. cit., p. 12.

38

Kosambi did not adherence with the mechanical application of Marxism

anywhere. He never admit the four stage schema of socio-economic formations of

Europe (Primitive Communism, Slavery, Feudal and Capitalism)in Indian soil, ‘that is

not a mathematical point but a very large country, a subcontinent with utmost

diversity of natural environment, language, historical course of development.’ 116

According to him the adoption of Marx’s thesis does not mean blind repetition of all

his conclusions at all times.117

“From the opposite direction, the Indian Official Marxists (thereafter called OM) have

not failed to manifest their displeasure with an interloper’s views. These from a mixed

category, indescribable because of rapidly shifting views and even more rapid political

permutations and combinations…. The OM has too often consisted of theological

emphasis on the inviolable sanctity of the current party line, or irrelevant quotations

from the classics.

For doing this blind repetition of Marxism, he not only

not admit official Marxists but also severely criticized them. He called them as OM.

He said that;

118

According to him Marxism is nothing but “tool of analysis” and not “substitute

of our thinking”.

119

116 D.D. KOSAMBI, “On a Marxist Approach to Indian Chronology”, ‘in Combined Methods, Op. cit., pp. 47-50. 117 D.D. KOSAMBI, Introduction, Op. cit., p. 10. 118 D.D. KOSAMBI, Exasperating Essays, Op. cit., p. 4. 119 D.D. KOSAMBI, “Marxism and Ancient Indian Culture”, Op. cit., p. 789.

The best examples are that his view on Asiatic Mode of

Production (AMoP), on Danke’s Slavery system, and on D.A. Suleikin’s Chronology

of India.

39

Oriental despotism is one of the ingredient features of Asiatic Mode of

Production (AMoP) that was firstly used by Karl Marx. According to Marx, “The

Asiatic, the ancient, the feudal and the modern bourgeois modes of production

designated as progressive epochs of the socio-economic orders.”120

“Those small and extremely ancient Indian (village)

In addition to

Oriental despotism, Agrarian Village communities based on water irrigation are

another characteristic feature of Asiatic mode. This society is unchangeable. For

getting clear picture above this AMoP we can quote Marx’s Capital.

121

120 KARL MARX, Critique of Political Economy, Op. cit., p. 4. 121 Kosambi adds the term ‘village’ by carefully reading Marx. See, D.D.KOSAMBI, Introduction, Op. cit., p. 11.

communities, some of which

have continued down to this day, are based on possession in common land, on the

blending of agriculture and handicrafts, and on an unalterable division of labour, which

serves, whenever a new community is started, as a plan and scheme ready cut and dried.

Occupying areas of from 100 up to several thousand acres, each forms a compact whole

producing all it requires. The chief part of the products is destined for direct use by the

community itself, and does not take the form of a commodity. Hence, production here

is independent of that division of labour brought about, in Indian Society as a whole, by

means of exchange of commodities. The simplicity of the organization for production

in these self-sufficing communities that constantly reproduce themselves in the same

form, and when accidentally destroyed, spring up again on the spot and win the same

name, this simplicity supplies the key to the secrete of the unchangeableness of Asiatic

Societies, an unchangeableness in stricking contrast with the constant dissolution and

refounding of Asiatic states, and the never-ceasing changes of dynasty. The structure of

40

the economic elements of society remains untouched by the storm-clouds of the

political sky.122

“Oriental Despotism therefore with its apparent legal absence of property is in fact….

based on tribal or communal property in most cases created through a combination of

manufacture and agriculture within the small community, which thus becomes entirely

self-sustaining and contains within itself all conditions of reproduction and surplus

labour belongs to the higher community…”

Again Marx explained that;

123

From these words of Marx we can clearly assumes ins and outs of AMoP. But

most of the historians both bourgeois and Marxist dismissed Marx’s AMoP.

According to Romila Thapar, “Marx, despite his concern for dialectical movement,

was not averse to the idea with its emphasis on a static society and an absence of

change, and worked the theory into his mode for Asian Society—that of the Asiatic

Mode of Production.”

124 R.S. Sharma identifies AMoP with feudalism. 125 Irfan

Habib theorizes AMoP and called it as State-Landlordism.126

What stand was taken by Kosambi in this issue reflects his correct position of

Marxist ideology. According to him “acute and brilliant as these remarks [of Marx]

122 KARL MARX, Capital, Vol. I, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1977, pp. 337-339. Emphasis added. 123 KARL MARX and FREDERICK ENGELS, Pre-Capitalist Socio-Economic Formations, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1979, p. 87. 124 ROMILA THAPAR, “Ideology and Interpretation of Early Indian History”, History & Beyond, Op. cit., pp. 6-7. 125 R.S.SHARMA, Indian Feudalism, Orient Logman. 126 IRFAN HABIB, “Marx Perception of India”, the Marxist, Vol. 1, July-September. 1983, pp. 92-193.

41

are, they remain misleading nevertheless.”127 He again said that “the villages did not

exist from times immemorial”.128 As far as Kosambi is concerned, what was Marx

himself said about India cannot be taken as its stands.129 But at the same time he

accepted a special kind of Asiatic Mode which was reaching over several stages (at

least, the term is applicable to India) when he analyze the caste system in India.130

By using the term oriental despotism, Karl A. Wittfogel started to abuse Soviet

Socialist System. According to him, “communism is the most dangerous form of

Oriental despotism and total power.

131 He again said that “the history of hydraulic

society suggests that the class struggle, far from being a chronic disease of all

mankind, is the luxury of multicentered and open societies.132 But clearly Kosambi

answer Wittfogel in his article “The basis of Despotism”. He said that ‘Oriental

despotism’, as if it were plague or cholera, succeeded in infecting Rome without

benefit of hydraulics.133

S.A. Dange, one of the former secretaries of undivided CPI who was also

criticized within the party for his right deviation and revisionism or renegacy towards

Marxism, published his India from Primitive Communism to Slavery in 1949. In this

book Dange was trying to explain India’s ancient past in its transition from primitive

communism to slavery by following the footpath of European Social development.

He not only brought all aspect of Oriental despotism but also

defended Soviet Socialism in this debate.

127 D.D.KOSAMBI, Introduction, Op. cit., p. 11. 128 Ibid. 129 Ibid. 130 D.D.KOSAMBI, “Stages of Indian History”, Combined Methods, Op. cit., p. 59. 131 D.D.KOSAMBI, The Basis of Despotism”, Combined Methods, Ibid., p. 798. 132 Ibid., p.800. 133 Ibid., p. 797.

42

Kosambi cannot tolerate with Dange’s “Facile pseudo-Marxism” 134 that shows the

extent of his tolerance towards mechanical application of Marxism.135 He, thus, made

a scathing review of this “painfully disappointing book” because of the fact that “to let

such a performance go unchallenged would bring Marxism into disrepute.” 136

According to him India never had a slave-holding economy in the same sense as

Greece and Rome.137

He reiterates the same in his criticism of Suleikin that “the Indian method for

expropriation of a whole class of labour made no use of slavery”.

138 He sees only

chattel slavery that can never have had any significant role in Indian production. He

also did a linguistic analysis on the same subject. On that basis the word ‘dasa’ does

not include the meaning of slave which is derived from the low Latin sclavus that

denotes a particular people from whom a large number of slaves were recruited. But

dasa in Rigvedic times means a set of tribes hostile to and generally beaten by the

Aryans.139

Kosambi considered sources as the primary thing that can be seen throughout

all his works. But in India, unlike other countries, historians face a big challenge of

scarcity of sources. In order to face this situation Kosambi used combined methods to

COMBINED METHODS

134 Ibid., p. 788. 135RAJAN GURUKKAL, “The Kosambi Effect”, Op. cit., p.91. 136 D.D. KOSAMBI, “Marxism and Ancient Indian Culture”, Op. cit., p. 784. 137 Kosambi argued the same in this review, and maintains this understanding in his all time. See also D.D.KOSAMBI, “On a Marxist Approach to Indian Chronology”, Op. cit., pp.51-56. 138 Ibid., p. 52. 139 Ibid., p. 54.

43

explore the source for his studies. According to him combined methods means the

linguistic study “supplemented by intelligent use of archaeology, anthropology,

sociology and a suitable historical perspective. This should be helped by a great deal

of honest and competent field work.”140

In order to know his combined methods we have to start from field work.

While Kosambi’s hermeneutics was based on almost entirely on Marxism and

Historical materialism, his heuristics was based on ethnographic field work and

particulars.

141 He consider field as his laboratory. 142 Pre-Kosambist paradigm

neglected field work. The paramount importance of field work in the study of Indian

history seems143

“Such work in the field falls into three inter-related classes: archaeology, anthropology

and philology. All three needs some preliminary knowledge of local conditions, the

ability to master local dialects, and to gain the confidence of tribesmen as well as

peaseants.”

altogether to have escaped their attention. He explained field work as

follows;

144

Such field work should be done with critical insight, taking nothing for granted, or on

faith.

145

140 D.D. KOSAMBI, Combined Methods, Op. cit., p.3. 141 RAJAN GURUKKAL, “The Kosambi Effect:”, Op. cit, p.91. 142 Ibid. 143 D.D. KOSAMBI, Introduction, Op. cit, p.ix. 144 Ibid. 145 51. Ibid., p.xi.

He advised that to avoid attitude of superiority, sentimental reformism or

44

spurious leadership which prevents most of us from learning anything except from bad

textbooks.146

“In all field work, it is necessary to develop a technique and critical method during the

course of the investigation itself. Fitting observations into rigid preconceived modules

is ruinous. The technique of asking the right questions in the proper way cannot be

taught nor mastered except in the field. Whatever transport is used to reach any given

locality, the actual field work can only be done on foot.”

How the field work can be performed is explained by him in the following

words.

147

Actually using filed data is not a new thing while writing history. Almost all historians

of ancient period must use the field study and field data. But all of them are not from

the living being but from the non-living things or from the relics of dead bodies.

According to him archaeology can provide some data, but in the study of field work

the historian should get “a great deal from the peasants”.

148 For employing combined

methods successfully, he suggests field archaeology in which the amount of digging is

negligible, but the ground covered exclusive.149 What he meant by field archaeology

is that the archaeology with which field work ‘in philology and social anthropology

had to be combined’. Archaeology in the field, thus, is distinguishing from the site

archaeology of a ‘dig’. 150

146 Ibid. 147 Ibid. 148 RAJAN GURUKKAL, The Kosambi Effect:”, Op. cit, p.92. 149 D.D Kosambi, Introduction, Op. cit, p.ix. 150 RAJAN GURUKKAL, The Kosambi Effect:”, Op. cit., p. 92.

At the same time he is reiterating the importance of

45

archaeology. According to him only primary archaeological work can help us to

evaluate the content, to fix the meaning of our written sources.151

“Archaeology”, he said, “alone can supply any reliable data for the study of ancient

cultures, particularly those that have left no contemporary, legible, written records. It is

a completely materialistic approach, for it tells more than any other method as yet at our

disposal about the tools of production utilized by many sections of mankind in the

remote past, historical or prehistoric. Ancient written sources are to be trusted in direct

proportion to their concordance with archaeological evidence......”

152

He also used ethnographical studies to enrich his primary sources. As far as

Kosambi is concerned the technique of applying the definition in practice means not

only the collation of the written record with archaeology, but the interpretation of each

of these in conjunction with ethnographic data.

153 Even in the fully developed greens

social clusters which “mark all strata of a caste society as having developed at some

older date from the absorption of tribal group”.154 If the careful study of these groups

furnishes the real problem for explanation in the light of historical development.155

He argued, for instance, that the change from aggregate of gentes to a society,

which is the advances of agrarian village economy over tribal country, is the first

great social revolution in India. This is still reflected in the endless ramifications of

the extant caste system, where the caste names, endogamy, commensal taboo,

151 D.D. KOSAMBI, “On a Marxist Approach to Indian Chronology”, Op. cit., p.51. 152 D.D. KOSAMBI, “Marxism and Ancient Indian Culture”, Op. cit. p.786. 153 D.D. KOSAMBI, Introduction, Op. cit., p. 7. 154 Ibid. 155 Ibid., pp.7-8.

46

exogamous steps observed in practice (often with totemic names) and east sabha

counsels are all off tribal origin. 156

His linguistic studies are the main sources for his reconstruction of India’s past.

He has inherited with thorough knowledge is Sanskrit. Not only was he master in

Marathi, English and Sanskrit but also in Pali, Greek, Latin, Hebrew, Arabic, German,

French, Italian, Portuguese and Russian.

This study was basically on the study of

ethnographic survivals.

157 He had fully utilized his knowledge in

different language in analyzing the literary records. He believed that “so far as annals,

king lists, chronicles, dates of important battles,, biographies of rulers and cultural

figures go, there is no Indian history worth reading”.158 His approach to the study of

literary texts, therefore, was analytical and critical.159

Kosambi’s analysis and criticism of literary work was informed by his

“commitment to a social and political ideology rooted in Marxism. In his view,

therefore, literature like (other) sciences should be understood as a function of the age

in which it is product”.

160

156 D.D. KOSAMBI, “The Basis of Ancient Indian History (I)”, in Combined Methods Op. cit., p. 308, and also see Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 75, No.1, Jan-Mar, 1955, p. 35. 157 BRAJADULAL CHATTOPADHYAYA, (ed)., Combined Methods, Op. cit., p. xiv. 158 D.D. KOSAMBI, Cultural and civilization, Op. cit., p.23. 159 RAJAN GURUKKAL, “The Kosambi Effect:”, Op. cit., p.94. 160 D.N. JHA, “Damodar Darmanand Kosambi, A Scholar Extraordinaire”, Op. cit., p.7.

He mixed up his class analysis with the literary analysis.

The best example of this is his analysis of the Quality of Renunciation of Bhartrhari’s

poetry. He tells us that, “the great poet in a class society must not only express the

position and aspirations of an important class, but must also transcend the class

47

barriers, whether explicitly or implicity.161 According to him Bhartrhari is a poet of

his class but he is not a poet of people.162 Kosambi’s stress on the class character of

Sanskrit literature is also evident from his introduction to the Subhasitaratnakosa.163

When this paper deals with anti-deterministic stand of Kosambism, the

theological type of application of Marxism by the OM and some Marxist scholars

have explained in detail. Euro-schematic style of chronology in India was subjected to

severe criticism of Kosambi. He never admits such a mechanical periodization in

India. According to him the historical periods must be demarcated according to the

developments in means and relations of production, not by fortuitous changes of

dynasty or battles but it can be recognized that major wars, great changes in rulers,

significant religious upheavals do often signalize fundamental changes in the

productive relations of the production.

Filed work that is combined with social philology and social anthropology,

field archaeology and site-archaeology and linguistic study collectively constitutes

Kosambi’s combined methods to explore the primary sources for interpreting the past.

KOSAMBIST CHRONOLOGY OF

INDIAN SOCIAL FORMATIONS

164 Here we have to remember his definition of

history as the chronological sequence of essential stages in the means and relations of

human social production.165

161 D.D. KOSAMBI, “The Quality of Renunciation of Bhartrhari’s poetry”, Exasperating Essays, Op. cit., p. 70. 162 Ibid. 163 D.N. JHA, Op. cit., p.8. 164 D.D. KOSAMBI, “On A Marxist Approach to Indian Chronology”, Op. cit p. 49. 165 D.D. KOSAMBI, “Stages of Indian History” in Combined Methods, op. cit., p. 58.

From this definition we can assume that he never negate

the chronological presentation of history. But his was entirely different from that of

the old that was the chronological presentation of reign and down fall of kings or

48

dynasty. But what Kosambi gave importance is that the chronological presentation of

development of modes of production. So what Kosambi set out in his An Introduction

to the study of Indian History to do is that to draw the chronological developments in

economic basis (the means and relations of production) and the changing beliefs,

customs, and the culture (superstructure) and their mutual relationship.166

166 IRFAN HABIB, “Kosambi, Marxism and Indian History” in Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 43, Op. cit., P. 86.

Kosambi outlined the main advances that had been happened in Indian history

as follows:

1) The urban but stagnant and Indus Valley Culture (3000-1500 BC) which

left its mark on later technique, iconography and probably social institutions.

2) Aryanization, i.e. late bronze and early Iron Age pastoral-nomadic tribal

organization over the two-caste system, developing into four caste-classes by 800 BC.

3) Clearing and settlement of the heavily forested Gangetic alluvial basin

with sudra labor, mostly under Magadhan state enterprise (from 500 BC) ending in the

first empire over the whole country by 250 BC.

4) A primitive feudalism where by the Peninsula was properly developed

for trade and agriculture (say the Satavahana period), but with far less production in

cities. The emergence of private property, even in land, began earlier than AD 400,

before the prime of Gupta Empire.

5) ‘Pure’ feudalism, begin in the later Gupta period enormously stimulated

by Muslim trade and military penetration after AD 1200.

49

6) Modern capitalism, culminating in the rule of a new indigenous

bourgeoisie that came into being and share capital, under British colonial rule.167

Thus he cast aside the conclusion of “Leningrade discussions” of the 1920,

that the unilinear succession of modes of production, primitive communism-slavery-

feudalism-capitalism, should be followed in practically all countries.

168 So he totally

rejected the slave mode of production in India. According to him India never had a

slave- holding economy.169 He argued that the term “Asiatic” occurring in Marx’s

passage in the preface to the Critique of Political Economy should be taken to cover a

case like India’s and, for this reason, the term should be not be ignored, as had been

done in Stalin’s interpretation of the passage.170

“Feudalism from above means a state where in an emperor or powerful king levied

tribute from subordinates who still ruled in their own right and did what they liked

within their own territories -- as long as they paid the paramount ruler. These

subordinate rulers might even be tribal chiefs, and seem in general to have ruled the

land by direct administration, without the intermediary of a class which was in effect a

land owning stratum. By feudalism from below is meant the next stage where a class of

land-owners developed within the village, between the state and the peasantry,

gradually to wield armed power over the local population. This class was subject to

He named primitive feudalism as ‘Feudalism from Above’ and ‘Pure’

feudalism as ‘Feudalism from below’. He explained that;

167 D.D. KOSAMBI, “Stages of Indian History”, Op. cit., p.58. 168 IRFAN HABIB, “Kosambi, Marxism and Indian History”, Op. cit., p. 86. 169 Ibid.; and also see D.D. KOSAMBI, “Stages of Indian History”, 170 IRFAN HABIB, “Kosambi, Marxism and Indian History”, Op. cit., p. 86.

50

military service, hence claimed a direct relationship with the state power, without the

intervention of any other stratum”.171

He also said that in both stages remnants of previous systems survived down to

the primitive food-gathering tribe.

172 According to him the basic difference between

these two stages derives the great increase in number of village communities.173 On

the question of Muslim conquest and rule in India, he said that, the complete feudal

system once set up spread rapidly in to territory not conquered by Muslims, which

again demonstrates that society was ripe for it.174

Kosambi argued for a feudal period of Indian history dating its start to the later

half of the first millennium AD and continuing with variations into recent ceturies.

175

The question of whether or not there was an Indian version of feudalism has been

debated for some years.176 Kosambi argued that the Indian version did not conform to

European feudalism since, among the features of difference there was an absence of

demesne-farming on a substantial scale on the land of the vassal those compulsorily

made to labor.177

171 D.D. KOSAMBI, Introduction, Op. cit., pp.295 - 405. 172 Ibid., p. 296. 173 Ibid. 174 D.D. KOSAMBI, “Stages of Indian History”, Op. cit., p.70. 175 ROMILA THAPAR, “Early Indian History and the Ligancy of D.D. Kosambi” in Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 43, Op. cit., P.49. 176 Ibid. 177 D.D. KOSAMBI, Introduction, Op. cit., p. 326.

R.S. Sharma the famous historian of early medieval India, does not

accept Kosambi’s later feudalism, feudalism from below: He said that “I do not

51

consider Kosambi’s theory of feudalism from below...We may look for feudalism

from below not only in the later stage as Kosambi does but also in the initial stage.”178

From these understandings of Kosambi on Indian chronology we can clearly

draw his materialistic un-deterministic approach on Indian chronology. Thus he

always opposed the scissors and paste

179

His understanding of present day mode of production is that of capitalist in

nature. According to the present ruling class is capitalist class. This understanding is

a big challenge to the official Marxist parties in India, which believe India’s ruling

class as a mixture of capitalist class and feudal lords. That is so why they are

proposing Peoples Democratic revolution.

method.

180 According to Kosambi feudalism has

declined in India. Their last struggle for existence was the war of 1857.181 Kosambi

said that “the class that rules India today, the Paramount power, is Indian bourgeoisie.

This class has some peculiar characters, due primarily to the course of history. The

Indian bourgeoisie is technically backward. Its production (and mentality) is

overwhelmingly that of a petty- bourgeoisie as yet.”182

178 R.S. SHARMA, Early Medieval Indian Society - A study in Feudalism, Orient Logman Ltd, 2001, Calcutta, 2001, p.8. 179 D.D. KOSAMBI, “Stages of Indian History”, Op. cit., p.71. 180 BASAVA PUNNAYYA, On Party Program, (Mal. Trans.) published by Communist Party of India (Marxist), State Committee, 1989.

Kosambi said this around half

a century back. Nowadays, the Indian capitalist system has been developed into

Imperialist-Capitalist system that can export capital abroad. In India there can not

181 D.D. KOSAMBI, “On The Class Structure of India”, Exasperating Essays, Op. cit. see http://www.geocities.com/dialecticalmethod/class.html 182 D.D, KOSAMBI, Introduction, Op. cit., p.xiii.

52

been seen the feudalism except in feudal behavior of Rural Bourgeoisie. But the

revolutionary Strategy of these communist parties remains ‘peoples democratic’ in

nature!!!

53

CHAPTER – 3

PROBLEMS, ISSUES AND PROSPECTS OF KERALA HISTORIOGRAPHY AND

KOSAMBIST PARADIGM

KERALA IS an extreme southern state of Indian Subcontinent. She has her own

features as compared with other regions. Mainly Physiographic features of Kerala,

today get the world attention so that the governments of Kerala are rushing to change

Kerala as a world tourist centre. She had a short history as compared with the other

regions like ‘Tamilakam’ or North India, since this small linguistic geographical area

had emerged recently.

Historical writings on this small geographical region have been started recently.

Here also a modern approach in history writing has been appeared from the advent of

European particularly of the English.183 British colonial power established history as a

separate discipline and a mode of enquiry 184 in Kerala. From that period several

attempts have been made to write history of Kerala with a modern approach both

macro and micro level.185

183 K.N. GANESH, “Historiographical Trends” in Prospectives on Kerala History, Kerala Gazetteers, Govt. of Kerala, 1999, p. 13. 184 Ibid. 185 The forms ‘micro histories’ and ‘micro histories’ have beautifully explained by K.N. Panikkar, see K.N. PANIKKAR, “In Defence of ‘Old History’” in Economic and political Weekly, Vol. 29, No. 40, Oct.1, 1994, p.2595.

But very little attempts have been made to evaluate these

54

attempts of historical writing and to discuss the trends in historiography. According to

Dr. K.N. Ganesh this may due to “a sense of complacency that has prevailed among

the historians themselves on the importance of analyzing critically their own

antecedents, the trends that have given shape to their own vision and method”.186 If

such attempts have been done, they are mainly aiming at only to “extolling or

debunking”187

This pathetic situation has resulted in the absence of an objective and critical

value judgment of the historical studies done in the past. Since the entry of K.P.

Padmanabha Menon in writing history, Rankeyan methodology has been mainly used

to write history of Kerala. Value judgments and opinions formed by historians from

that time, on the basis of the available evidence and the accepted methods of historical

enquiry prevalent at the time of their study, have been paraded as facts. Such ‘facts’

have contributed to the popular conceptions about Kerala’s past.

the hitherto historical writings rather than evaluating them.

188

History is not ‘grandma’s tales that invariable started with the days of a king of

long, long ago.

HISTORICAL WRITINGS OF KERALA THROUGH

DIFFERENT PHASES

189

186 K.N. GANESH, “Historiographical Trends”, Op. cit., p.1. 187 Ibid. 188 Ibid. 189 RAJAN GURUKKAL and M.R. RAGHAVA VARIER, (eds)., Cultural History of Kerala, Vol.1, Dept. of Cultural publications, Govt. of Kerala, 1999, p.xv.

History is a specialized knowledge about the past. It is a social

science. Just as other social science it is now concerned about the development of

human social life according to the development of Mode of Production.

55

“History is”, E.M.S Namboodiripad said, “a science that is at embryonic stage.... (It

has) another feature, that is to be emphasized, is that it is a science that reflects the class

view of the researcher. This may, thus, act as a strong weapon that is used for

maintaining and preserving the interests of ruling class or classes.”190

Pre -modern Phase.

That is so why an ‘impartial’ or unbiased history is only a daydream. Nowadays this

materialistic approach on Kerala part has been much widely used after E.M.S. who

launched Marxist methodology in history writing. Up to then and after that Kerala

Historiography had passed and is passing through different stages.

Earlier period of Kerala remains only a certain records. Athula’s Mushaka

Vamsa which belongs to the Kavya tradition191 is one of the rare historical works of

that period. It was prepared by Athula in the 11th Century AD. Athula was a court poet

of Mushaka (Elimala in Northern Kerala) ruler Srikantha. 192

The work is a blend of legends and facts. The author relays upon legends and

traditions for recording the early history of Mushaka Kingdom. Athula relates the

This poem has to be

noted that the commonly accepted first historical chronicle of India, since Kalhana’s

Rajatarangini was dated 12th century AD only. According to K.N. Ganesh, this poem

is structurally similar to Raghuvamsa by Kalidasa, but in the presentation of historical

detail, the poem is similar to Rajatarangini.

190 E.M.S. NAMBOODIRIPAD, “Keralam Malayalikalude Mathrubhoomi” (Kerala, the Mother land of Malayalies) (Mal.) in Collected Works, Vol.9, Chintha Publications, Thriuvananthapuram, 2000, p.24. 191 T.K. GANGADHARAN, Evolution of Kerala History & Culture, Calicut University, p.2. 192 K.N. GANESH, “Historiographical Trends”, Op. cit., p.1.

56

origin of the dynasty with a traditional myth.193 The actual important of Mushaka

Vamsa in farming the tradition of historical writing in Kerala has yet to be fully

analyzed. This poem stands almost alone, as there has not been any evidence for a

similar composition on the Perumals or any other Naduvazhis. This poem was

prepared on the basis of his own observation and interpretation. This is the chief work

which gives an account of the penetration of Cera Kingdom over Elimala.194

Medieval accounts of Kerala, both indigenous and foreign, incorporated the

accounts of the past also. More systematic work in this respect began from the 16th

century.

195 A Christian priest named Joseph Kattanar, from Kodungallur give an

amount of Kerala for the benifit of his European audience in 16th century. Another

account is Tuhfat-ul-Mujahidin, an appeal to the Muslim world to organize jehad

against the Portuguese intruders. 196 This was written by Shaikh Zainnuddin of

Ponnani in 1583.197 During the beginning of the 17th century another Portuguese priest,

Diogo Gonsalves wrote Historia Da Malabar.198

Here a question will arise as to whether these accounts can be called on

‘histories’. In the modern sense of the term they are not histories “since they were not

concerned with a rigorous examination of the past of Kerala”.

199

193 T.K. GANGADHARAN, Op.cit., p.2. 194 K.N. GANESH, “Historiographical Trends”, Op. cit., p.2. 195 Ibid. 196 M.G.S NARAYANAN, “Historiography of Kerala: Some important Issues”, Op. cit., p.192. 197 K.N. GANESH, “Historiographical Trends”, Op. cit., p.2. 198 Ibid. 199 Ibid.

They were mainly

57

the descriptions of the conditions of Kerala at the time of their writing and the period

immediately preceding it, with references to the distant past limited to broad allusions.

Now we have to examine the features of Kattanar’s and Zainuddin’s works.

Joseph Kattanar explained the history and customs of Kerala Christians in terms of the

history and customs Prevalent in the Land. 200 Zainuddin shows how the Muslim

community was incorporated into socio cultural milieu present in Kerala and shows

how the Portuguese were trying to break their milieu in order to spread their religion

and customs.201 Zainuddin saw history as a background for the on going struggle, and

his own commitment determined his outlook towards history.202

However, ‘Historical writings’ on the basis of oral tradition and written

information had begun to take shape during the period from 16th to 18th centuries.

Brahmanas started to compile this oral tradition as Kerlolpathi that have appeared in

various places.

203

200 T.K. GANGADHARAN, Op.cit., p.3 201 Ibid., p.4 202 K.N. GANESH, “Historiographical Trends”, Op. cit., p.3. 203 Ibid, pp.4-5.

Vatakkam Pattukal, ChengannurAdi etc started to appear. Despite

all these, the various versions of the Keralolpatti show remarkable consistency in

some of the details, viz. Brahmana Grama, role of Perumals, and the origin of the

Naduvazhi chiefs. Comparative studies on Keralolpatti and their correlation with

available evidence show that the oral tradition of the Keralolpatti was based on a

58

strong foundation of facts.204 Works on the non-brahminical tradition might also show

a similar basis.205

Other important documents are Granthavaris. These are maintained by the

ruling families and temples. These are the great documents that provide ample

historical data. The Kshetrakaryam Curuna and Rajyakaryam Curuna maintained in

Padmanabha temple, Thiruvananthapuram are excellent records of events. The

chronicler was not only recording the events in relation to the temple but also

recording political events that took place in the contemporary period and the recent

past.

206

Colonial phase.

The first effort of writing history can be seen in Vaikkathu Pachu Moothathu.

Mooththu’s Tiruvitamkur Caritram (History of Travancore), 1867 was prepared on

the basis of oral tradition and Granthavaris. 207 But this work could not “proceed

beyond an arrangement of legends and facts.”208 A transition had been done in the

colonial period i.e. a transition from historical writing of this type to writings on the

basis of authentic source materials and analysis.209

In the initial stage Kerala was totally avoided from the historical writing by the

English colonial powers. Actually the Indian historical writing had been, in the

204 Ibid. 205 E.M.S NAMBOODIRIPAD, Kerala Charithravum Samskaravum: Oru Marxist Veekshanam (History and culture of Kerala: A marxist perspective) (mal.), Chinta Publishers, 2008, p.44. 206 T.K. GANGADHARAN, Op. cit., p.5. 207 Ibid., p.7. 208 K.N. GANESH, Op. cit, P.6. 209 M.E. MANICKAVASAGOM, “Sources for the Study of Early History of Kerala” in Issues in Kerala Historiography, Op. cit., p.37.

59

modern sense, started by them. James Mill, Vinsent Smith etc. wrote about India with

their colonial perspective. The liberal tradition that encouraged James mill to write his

History of India could not be said to have influenced the majority of British

administers.210 The British came to India as conquerors and in order to strengthen

their conquest they had to study India’s past and culture. 211 This was particularly

important in revenue administration where the traditional land system had to be

studied. Actually this function had been fulfilled by Orientialists. As far as Kerala is

concerned this efforts was absent except some of the attempts. This initial effort is

clearly visible in the studies Buchanan, word & Cornner. Another feature of this study

was the study of immediate past. None of these efforts comprised a ‘history’. They are

nothing more than collection of oral evidence and the examination of contemporary

records.212 This situation continued till the end of 19th century.P. Shangoony Menon’s

History of Travancore (1878) formed was the earliest endeavor for writing a complete

historical account on Travancore.213

210 K.N. GANESH, “Historiographical Trends”, Op. cit., p.6. 211 ROMILA THAPAR, The penguin History of Early India, Op. cit., pp.1-12. 212 M.G.S. NARAYANAN, Op. cit., p.194. 213 D. DANIEL, “Historical Research in Modern Kerala - problems and scope” in Issues in Kerala Historiography, Op. cit, p.147.

He was an employee of the King of Travancore.

He started his official career as a clerk and reached up to the level of the acting Diwan

of Travancore. By enjoying the highest position in the court Menon had access to all

official records and personal contacts with the King. He could use all the available

60

sources for writing book.214 He was also encouraged in to this enterprise by the then

ruler of Tiruvitamkur.215

Menon’s approach and treatment of historical source appeared more from the

point of view of Kings and their genealogies, their accessions and death. His method

was ‘history from above’ as against the recent trend of ‘history from below’.

216 As a

conservative and obscurantist, he could not tolerate the changing trend among the

people on account of western influence. He advocated the continuity of a stagnant

social system to continue for the convenience and benefit of the higher castes and was

out rightly against any moral, physical or physiological growth of the oppressed

communities. He also opposed rights of Shannar women to wear upper cloths.217

A more analytical use of history was in fact, made by a British administrator

historian, William Logan. Logan in his Malabar Manual that was published in 1887

attempted to present a detailed historical account of the Malabar district.

218

214 T.K. GANGADHARAN, Op. cit., p.7. 215 K.N. GANESH, “Historiographical Trends”, Op. cit., p.7. 216 D. DANIEL, Op. cit., p.148. 217 Ibid. 218 C.K. KAREEM, “Kerala Historiography” in Issues in Kerala Historiography, Op. cit., p.203.

The

differences in method from Shangoonny Menon’s account are clear from this work.

First, he was able to see the distinct features of Megalithic burials and their

importance in reconstructing the very ancient past. Second, he was able to distinguish

between traditional history and history from other sources, whereby a definite effort

was made to separate the oral and legendary information from the information being

gathered from the new evidence, i.e. inscriptions, monuments, coins etc. Third, he was

61

able to the some extent possible to eliminate the incorporation of unsubstantiated oral

tradition in to the history of the period for which more definite evidence is available as

in his treatment of history from the Portuguese period.219 However, both Logan and

Menon were primarily administrators, and their commitment to history was in so far

as it served their administrative needs.220

In this period the inscriptional study has got much attention. The historians

understood that this study would be able to throw light on the early period of Kerala

history which was a mixture of legend and fact. Such an exercise was undertaken by P.

Sundaram Pillai, a Tamil poet and scholar in the heterodox tradition

221 who studied

the available inscriptions with reference to Tiruvitamkur rulers. His series of articles

under the title of the “Early Sovereigns of Travancore”222

A path-breaking approach was inaugurated by K.P. Padmanabha Menon, son of

Shangoonny Menon, when he wrote his Malayalam work Kochirajya Caritram.

brought to light not only

political details but also interesting aspects of society and culture. V. Nagam Aiya,

incorporated the studies of Sundaram Pillai into his Travancore State Manual.

223 He

was a lawyer by profession. He was imbibed with the spirit of modern research and

chalked out a new line. He devoted almost a whole life time for collecting materials

for a History of Kerala. He followed the example of Logan instead of his own father,

in attempting critical examination.224

219 K.N. GANESH, “Historiographical Trends”, Op. cit., p.9. 220 Ibid. 221 Ibid 222 T.K. GANGADHARAN, Op. cit., p.6. 223 K.N. GANESH, “Historiographical Trends”, Op. cit., p.10. 224 M.G.S. NARAYANAN, Op. cit., p.193.

However, Menon was unable to make the best

62

use of inscriptional and other forms of evidence in order to throw light on the

antecedents and origins of the kingdom of kochi. Hence although he was not

constrained by the value judgments of his predecessors Menon was unable to achieve

anything more than a systematic presentation of the available information mainly form

secondary sources.225

The period after the European arrival also aroused considerable interest

particularly in the wake of the existing reality of colonial yoke and growing

sentiments against it. Thus narrative histories were composed on the Portuguese and

Dutch periods by K.M. Panikar, and later by O.K. Nambiar. They have the

nationalistic colour more emphasis. Their Picturaisation of Kunjali was as nationalist

leader.

The archaeological tradition had been appeared just after Padmanabha Menon.

Several enthusiasts like K.R. Pisharady, V.K.R Menon, V.N.D Nambiar and Anujan

Achan were collecting inscriptional evidence. Anujan achan was mainly concentrating

on the archaeological excavations around Kodungallur. They published their finding

in the Rama Varma Research Institute Bulletin.

226

Post-Colonial Phase

227

The chief contribution of colonialism to historiography was the establishment

of history as a separate discipline and mode of enquiry. In post-colonial period the

researches have been accumulated. Even though this facilitated to possible not only to

225 K.N. GANESH, “Historiographical Trends”, Op. cit., 10-11. 226 Ibid, p.12. 227 Here the term ‘post-colonial’ is not used in the sense of post colonialism, a contemporary theory that inaugurated by Fanon. But here it is used only in the sense of after independence.

63

develop a non traditional framework of Kerala history but also analyze and interpret

the traditional framework in the light of new evidences. But that was not happened but

the search for such a framework continued to be elusive.228

However, the efforts at explanation of historical evidence were growing among

those working out side the institutional framework.

This crisis has several

reasons. The first is the institutional reason. History taught in colleges was basically

construed in the colonial mould and failed to change with the needs of the post

independence era. History as a presentation of ‘accumulated facts’ and as a

presentation of political changes as a parade was preferred. Even the History of Kerala

as a subject has been started to teach in the academic institutions only very recently.

229 These efforts can be divided

into two. One is done by those who were active in various social protest movements,

who attempted an enquiry into the historical forces that laid the basis of their

contemporary position in society. Thus several ‘caste histories’ were constructed on

Nayars, Nambutiries, Izhavan etc. These historians had no understanding of the

historical method nor had any access to sources. 230

Another trend was the effort at historical analysis by those influenced by

progressive and socialist ideas who tried to use the tool of Materialistic conception of

Pracheena Malayalam by

Chattambi Swamikal was a best to this tradition this own an attempte to write a

historical account of the Nairs. N.R. Krishnan’s Izhavar Annum Innum, the articles by

C.V. Kunjuraman, etc. are examples.

228 K.N. GANESH, “Historiographical Trends”, Op. cit., p.13. 229 D. DANIEL, Op. cit., pp.149-150. 230 K.N. GANESH, “Historiographical Trends”, Op. cit., p.13.

64

History or Historical Materialism.231

Beyond these trends even though without a correct framework some attempts

are there. Such an effort has brought by a professor of Malyalam, Prof. P.N.

Elamkulam Kunhan Pillai.

Writings of E.M.S Namboodiripad on Kerala

History and K. Damodarm’s unfinished Kerala Caritham are the best examples of this

trend.

232 Elamkulam was one of the first to scientifically analyze

the accumulating inscriptional evidence and realize the significance of the megalithic

burials in terms of social and political history.233

E.H. Carr said that the function of the historians is neither to love the past nor

to emancipate himself from the past, but to master and understand it as the key to the

understanding of the present. Great history is written precisely when the historians

vision of the part is illuminated by insight into problems of the present.... to learn

about the present in the light of the part also means to learn about the past in the light

of present. The function of history is to promote a profounder understanding of both

part and present through the interaction between them.”

PROBLEMS AND ISSUES IN

KERALA HISTORIOGRAPHY

234

231 Ibid. 232 M.G.S. NARAYANAN, Op. cit., p.195. 233 K. SADASIVAN, “Problems and prospects of Historiography of with special Reference to the works of Ilamkulam P.N. Kunjan Pillai” in Issues in Kerala Historiography, Op. cit., pp.218-229. 234 E.H. CARR, What is history, London, 1962, pp.20,31, 62 and 62.

Unfortunately, Kerala most

of the historians belongs to the school which, E.H. Carr described, are “to love the

part or to emancipate themselves from the part”. They are not ready to give up their

65

outmoded frame work of ‘story telling’ mode. They are unable to base their

understandings of history on Materialism. Some of the turn has been appeared that

will be explained later. In addition to this Kerala historiography is facing several

enumerated as follows.

Problem of security of evidence

Facts are essential ingredient of writing history. Without facts or evidences,

historians can nothing to explain. Since the ‘Berlin Revolution’ of Ranke, the primary

sources have been started to be depended for constructing history. All historians every

where in the world are facing the challenges of scarcity of facts. This is a big block in

the way of historians.

As far as Kerala is concerned, the scarcity of evidence is a big problem.235 The

researches in the auxiliary disciplines have been going on and helping history several

ways. Even though, this problem is remaining unsettled.236

“…the historical sources, i.e., epigraphs, copper plates, letters, notes etc were

prepared by the rulers are their officials. Their aim was not to tell truth but to

eulogize their masters Kerala historians can perform his duty only through creep

into the flatteries, starting from the theory that Kerala was created by Parasurama

to the theory of the English that up to their advent the natives were uncivilized

and barbarians”.

Beside this E.M.S has also

seen another problem-the veracity of the available evidences. He said,

237

235 E.M.S. NAMBOODIRIPAD, “Keralam Malayalikaludie Mathrubhumi” Op. cit., p.66. 236 M.G.S. NARAYANAN, Op. cit., p.197. 237 E.M.S. NAMBOODIRIPAD, “Keralam Malayalikaludie Mathrubhumi” Op. cit., pp.67-68.

66

The trend that dominated the historiography of Kerala until recently is the

collection and interpretation of individual source material. This meant that collection

and preservation of sources that did not immediately attract the interest of the

historian tended to be ignored. Collection of sources became the major casualty when

histories revolved around personalities, as a large number of documents including land

deeds, family documents, etc might not mention them. This also applied to

inscriptions and archaeological evidence. After the spurt of activity in the beginning

of the 20th century, interest or expertise in the study of archaeological evidence or

inscriptions also waned.

Research work in Archaeology and Epigraphy and actual works of collecting

new evidence was restricted to the individual enthusiasts. This was started by the

Department of Archaeology in British India and the native states.238

Lack of Method

But after that it

became statement.

The second major problem is the problem of Method. The traditional frame-

work has been done during the post-independence period, but an effective method and

frame work for the study of history has not been developed.239 This has been partly

the result of the emphasis on facts and the text book approach. However, debates have

been taking place on this problem at different levels, using different parameters.240

238 M.G.S. NARAYANAN, Op. cit., p.193-194. 239 K.N. GANESH, “Historiographical Trends”, Op. cit., p.21. 240 Ibid.

How historian can approach the past for getting most accurate history? In what way

67

was the Kerala society feudal? What were the specific features that provided the

commonality variations vis-à-vis the ‘classical feudal model’? How did the feudal

agrarian order come into being? These questions are to be discussed with in this frame

work.241

Problem of Institutional Framework

Regarding these questions, two types of discussions are going on. The first

such discussion is basically on how to interpret the available evidence on pre-modern

Kerala. The second is relating to the question of applying various formulations on the

available evidences.

The forth problem is on Institutional framework. Historical methodology based

on analytical and critical study, which has been a result of active discourse, is allergy

to our academic circle. They are comfort with the stereotypical patterns, ossified

models. K.N. Ganesh criticized them that “the institutional framework that existed at

present, including Government departments, archives, archaeology, University

departments, college level history teaching and the popular understanding of history,

have been based on stereotypical patterns and ossified models. Active discourse does

not exist there. Discussions and debates therefore get restricted to occasionally

sponsored seminars and the post-dinner sections among a few enthusiasts.”242

241 See preface of E.M.S’s Keralam Malayilkalude Mathrubhumi, E.M.S. NAMBOODIRIPAD, “Keralam Malayalikaludie Mathrubhumi” Op. cit., pp 23-45; Kerala Charitravum Samskaravum, Op.cit,; and Kerala Charitram Marxist Veekshanathil, Chintha Publishers, Thiruvananthapuram, 1990, pp.1-82. 242 K.N. GANESH, “Historical Trends”, Op. cit., p.22.

So the

68

students of history in Kerala are forced to accept the outmoded institutional

stereotypical framework.

We have to note that the “traditional oral-legendary” framework is also

prevailing here. Thus the myths regarding St. Thomas, Ayyappaswamy and Adi

Sankara are also regarding on unquestionable truth. If any one student who attempts to

question them he would be subjected to the wrath of the believer-revivalist.

Lack of correct Perspective

Historical outlook is very necessary since, history in essence, is the

interpretation of the past made by historians. It must include the subjective thought.

But the subject should be the reflection of the objective world. How such subjective

thought can be a reflection of the concrete objective world so far as to history is

dealing with the matters what was happened has been a big challenging question

before the historians for a long period. If we show any type of negligence towards this

question, it would be more dangerous that will bring several adverse effects what we

are witnessing in the present day.

Moreover history is peculiar science that reflects the point of view of a

particular class or group with which they are associated243 because we are living in a

society where definite forms of classes exist. Class-struggle, thus, as a living reality

will reflects in the thoughts of each individual. The historian is not an exception to this

principle. So there are bourgeois and Marxist historiography244

243 E.M.S. NAMBOODIRIPAD, “Some Problems of Indian History”, in social Scientist, Vol. 3, No. 9, Apr., 1975, p.14. see also “Keralam Malayalikalude Mathrubhoomi”, Op. cit., p.24. 244 ERNST NOLTE, Op. cit., pp57-73.

whose struggles are

69

irreconcilable. In India we can see Marxist (and not pseudo-Marxist) historians like

D.D. Kosambi, Irfan Habib, R.S. Sharma etc. who are successfully combating not

only bourgeois historians but also extreme bourgeois nationalistic historians called as

communalistic historians. The latter two are idealistic in nature where as the former is

materialistic in nature.

In Kerala there is a lack of strong Marxist stream though it was started by

certain Communists. Even the historians who claimed to be Marxists are very strongly

influenced by the bourgeois and petty-bourgeois interests. In order to become more

‘unbiased’ and ‘objective’ they are giving up Marxist method, working class

perspective and undertaking the ‘heavily responsibilities’ of Culturalist theories, post-

Structuralist theories or of the post-modern and post-Marxist theories. This ‘stand-

less’ standpoint is one of the chief problems of Kerala Historiography.

KOSAMBIST PARADIGM AND KERALA

HISTORIOGRAPHY Now we reached one of the main themes of the present study. This study has

defined Kosambism as the system of Kosambi’s Views, method and teachings. It has a

far reaching applicability. As a development of the Materialistic Conception of

History, Kosambism has got universality. It can use to define and interpret the

historical phenomena both as macro and micro level. Marxist historiography had been,

here in Kerala, firstly appeared through the writings of E.M.S. He himself declared

that, his was the pioneer effort to interpret Kerala’s past in the light of Materialistic

70

Conception of History.245 He said that “whatever may be limitations and weaknesses

in its approach “Keralam” was the first attempt to examine Kerala’s ancient past in the

light of Marxist perspective”.246 He also interprets Kerala’s first class society as cast-

janmi-loard system.247 This conclusion itself is evident that he never blindly applied

the Euro-schematic level of social development in India particularly in Kerala. In

perspective level he fully depends on Marxism i.e. Historical Materialism. According

to him “historians other than those guided by the theory of Historical Materialism are

handicapped by the fact that they does not see the history of human society as one of

man’s struggle against nature in the course which he enters into mutual relations with

other members of society. Nor do they perceive that these mutual relations become

what are known as relations of conflict between the exploiting and exploited class”.248

Though E.M.S. made greater contributions in this respect, most of the

historians criticized his dependency on the secondary sources.

He also tried to draw historical outline as the developments of modes of

production. Like Kosambi he used his knowledge of Sanskrit and on that basis he

made some linguistic studies. So we can see Kosambist elements firstly in E.M.S.’s

works. This proves the scope of Kosambist paradigm in interpreting Kerala History.

249

245 E.M.S. NAMBOODIRIPAD, “Keralam Malayalikalude Mathrubhoomi”, Op. cit., p.23. 246 Ibid. 247 E.M.S. NAMBOODIRIPAD, “Keralam Malayalikalude Mathrubhoomi”, Op. cit.; Kerala Charithram Marxist veekshanathil, Chintha Publishers, Thiruvananthapuram, 1980; and “National Question if Kerala”, Vol. 11, Chintha Publishers, Thiruvananthapuram, 2000, pp.113-363. 248 .M.S. NAMBOODIRIPAD, “Some Problems of Indian History”, Op. cit. p.14. 249 K.N. GANESH, “Historical Trends”, Op. cit.; and M.G.S. NARAYANAN, Op. cit., p199-200.

According to M.G.S

Narayanan, “however, E.M.S. Namboodiripad possessed no knowledge of epigraphic

71

or literary material, claimed that he was looking at the development of feudalism in

Kerala in the light of Marxist theory, without reference to known sources”.250 Here

M.G.S. noted one of the great defects of Namboodiripad. But his further evaluation on

E.M.S. reflects his total allergy to Marxist historiography. He with his hypertension

towards Marxism called E.M.S.’s evaluation as the ‘mockery of Marxism’,

‘retrogressive movement in the field of historical writing in Kerala’ etc. 251

After E.M.S Marxist trend in history writing of Kerala become limited. But

entry of new historians like K.N. Ganesh, M.R. Raghava Varier, Rajan Gurukkal,

Kesavan Veluthat, etc.with a Marxist framework also developed this stream of

thought. Under the general editorship of Rajan Gurukkal and M.R. Raghava Varier,

department of Cultural Publications brought out Cultural History of Kerala Vol. I

This

criticism does not reflect truth. M.G.S.’s recent stand towards ‘the text book issue’

when an amendment in the school level history text books in Kerala was undertaken

by left-government reflects his retrogressiveness. He suddenly jumped in to the camp

made by congress with all communal forces.

252

250 M.G.S. NARAYANAN, Op. cit. pp199-200. 251 Ibid. 252 RAJAN GURUKKAL and M.R. RAGHAVA VARIER (Eds.), Cultural History of Kerala, Op. cit.

.

This was a great step. Though they prefer multiple perspectives in the preface of this

book, it tries to conceptualize Kerala’s culture with the analysis of material sources.

So with the defect of perspective, the book has a merit of source-analysis and also

maintaining materialism (that materialism cannot be called as Marxist materialism).

72

In order to get the sufficient evidences, as Kerala history, as we explained is

suffering from lack of scarcity of sources, combined methods is most useful. Here

there are several ancient literary sources. Besides this several archaeological sources

are there. But here using of field archaeology has not been developed though

individual efforts from Rajan Gurukkal like people prevail. Rajan Gurukkal

deciphered the epigraphs of Edakkal caves. 253

History is nothing but, as Kosambi said, the chronological presentation of the

developments in means and relations of production. The means and relations of

production, which are collectively called mode of production determines and

conditions the superstructure (culture, politics, philosophic, juridical, in essence,

This supplemented the historical

writing with linguistic and philological studies. But what Kosambi said about field

archaeology could not be fully utilized in Kerala, one of the main centers of India

where the tribal people who are having the primitive mode of production, even

hunting and gathering are densely populated. The anthropological studies in this area

are developing. But their contributions in history writing are so scanty. So historians

should use to analyze the culture and material base of these people to understand

Kerala’s past.

The method of cult of facts is also prevailing in Kerala history as a dominant

position. Most of the historians in Kerala like M.G.S. Narayanan, A. Sreedhara Menon,

etc. is belonging to this school. This type of history has only one benefit—the benefit

of a chronicle. This story-telling mode of writing history has become outmoded.

253 Ibid., pp.157-533.

73

social consciousness). Here lays scope of Kosambi’s definition and methodology of

history in Kerala.

Though Rajan Gurukkal like people is claiming themselves as Marxists and

they are contributing in the Kerala history, they fear to uphold this ideology. They are

much influenced by the contemporary theories of late capitalism, post-modernism, de-

structuralism etc. It is no doubt that historians have to give up economic determinism.

But in the pretext, ‘to be unbiased’ and ‘to be more objective’ these historians dismiss

their connection with the working class interest. This may be the result of their petty-

bourgeois standpoint that Marx and Engels considered as most vacillating tendency.

This tendency should be avoided. Kosambi always tried to interpret Indian history

with his strong adherence to Marxism, the working class ideology. Marxism is not an

unbiased ideology. Its declaration as a proletarian ideology is very famous. If it is

biased, its bias differs fundamentally from bias of any other form of historical

scholarship. Its bias is not at odds with objectivity, for “the basic interests of the

working class are in harmony with the conditions of objective reality”.254

So the model of Kosambi’s history can successfully be used in Kerala History.

Kosambist Paradigm is much, thus, useful to the study of Kerala’s past. In order to

bring into the socio-cultural and past of Kerala, her history should be reconstructed on

the materialistic base. Historical materialism particularly Kosambist Paradigm is only

the way out.

254 ERNST NOLTE, Op. cit., p.59.

74

CONCLUSION

THERE IS a famous saying—fools rush in where angels fear to tread. Our history,

history of Kerala for long period has been searching for a new mode of interpretation.

World has passed several phases in history writing and reaches the threshold of

‘postmodernism’ that celebrate the death-day of history. That it has its own history is

a joking paradox. This postmodernist tendency is not a new but a continuation of the

same old anarchism of Bakunin255

Marxism sees all sciences with a historical viewpoint. “We know only a single

science”, said Marx and Engels, “the science of history. One can look at history from

two sides and divided it into the history of nature and the history of men. The two

sides are, however, inseparable; the history of nature and the history of men are

dependant on each other so long as man exists. The history of nature, called natural

science, does not concern us here; but we will have to examine the history of men,

since almost the whole ideology amounts either to a distorted conception of this

history or to a complete abstraction from it.”

who consider Marxism as its enemy since Marxism

always upholds the truth that the world as well as historical development follows

certain laws, which collectively known as Dialectical Materialism.

256

255 Mikhail Alexandrovich Bakunin (1814-1876) was a Russian democrat who was a propagandist of anarchism. 256 Quoted by Vivek Monteiro, see VIVEK MONTEIRO, “Science is the Cognition of necessity”, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 43, Op. cit., p.103.

Here by transforming all the science

into the level of history, history itself becomes a science. Historical Materialism

examines history materialistically i.e. in the view of the developments of social

75

formations. According to this view society develops in accordance with the

developments of mode of production i.e. production for men’s material life is base

upon which their social consciousness (culture, juridical, political, aesthetic etc) is

constructed. In the material production men enter into definite relations not only with

each other but also with the forces of production. This ultimately leads to the split of

society into various classes. So that Marxism declares that from the dissolution of

primitive communism, the ancient classless society, history of the existing society is

the history of class struggle.

Here in India Marxist Materialist Conception of History was, in the highest

form, applied by D.D. Kosambi. He himself dedicated his life to put this theory into

practice. Thus he could win to develop a new concept on Indian history. He also

became successful to develop Indian history into materialistic one. His definition of

history as ‘the presentation, in chronological order, of the successive developments in

means and relations of production’ is a watermark that demarcates his methodology

from that of his predecessors.

The question before him was as to how reconstruct India’s past on a

materialistic base. For India is a country where the source materials are too

insufficient, he developed a new method called combined methods in which linguistic

study, field archaeology, site archaeology and social anthropology are combined

together. By doing this he could win in interpreting available literary source materials

almost materialistic in nature and constructing Indian cultural past.

76

According to him Marxism is not a substitute of our thinking or blind repetition

of Marx’s conclusions but a great ‘tool’, a yardstick of analysis as Marxist teachers

reiterated. That is so why he took a strong position against the deterministic theories

and blind applications of Marxism by the pseudo Marxist and OM (Official

Marxist).at the same time he proudly without any type of vacillating tendency

declared himself as a Marxist. He defended Marxism from the attacks of bourgeois

intellectuals, the scribes of capitalism. As Romila Thapar noticed, his was a Paradigm

shift in historical writing in India.

From this, Kosambist paradigm can be defined as Marxist methodological

perspective of history that can be used not only to interpret history but also change.

Why such a definition is that Kosambi’s understandings, method, perspective and

teachings collectively constitute a new Paradigm as a developed form of Marxist

Historical Materialism. Kosambism, thus, means the system of Kosambi’s views,

method and teachings. This is a science that has universal applicability.

Marxist Methodology of historical interpretation has been in Kerala for several

decades. But such a methodology could not develop from embryonic stage. So that it

could not achieve prime position. That is so why comprehensive history of Kerala,

though historians reached a developed stage, is remaining as unreachable since the

problems of scarcity of sources, lack of correct method and perspectively rigid

institutional framework etc are prevailing. In order to eliminate these problems and to

reconstruct Kerala’s history in a materialistic base Kerala historian should give up

their old mode of telling historical truth and replace it with Kosambist paradigm.

77

Nowadays, in Kerala, by using the loopholes made by our predecessors in

historical writings the communal histories are being appeared. That is so dangerous to

the entire human society. Muslims write their own history, Hindus write their history

and Christians write their own history. All these histories are not reflecting any

historical truth but reflecting only the hostility to other religions. So we are bound to

shoulder the responsibility to rectify these loopholes. How can we employ these

responsibility is that to reconstruct Kerala’s history on materialistic basis with the tool

of Kosambist paradigm, which is a scientific synthesis of Marxist Historiography and

its development in a higher phase.

As E.H. Carr said history has an aim, that is to enable the humankind to open

the present problem ‘as a key to the understanding of the present’. In such a way the

past should be linked with the present and future. Kosambist paradigm, by interpreting

the India’s past with astrong Marxist class analysis, changes the world as Marx Said,

“Philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point, however, is

to change it”.

78

BIBLIOGRAPHY

PRIMARY SOURCES

Books

1. KOSAMBI, D.D., An Introduction to the Study of Indian History, Popular Prakasan,

Bombay, 1996.

2. KOSAMBI, D.D., Combined Methods in Indology and other writings, (compiled and

edited by Brajadulal Chattopadhayaya), Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 2002.

3. KOSAMBI, D.D., Culture and Civilization of Ancient India in Historical Outline,

Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1965.

4. KOSAMBI, D.D., Exasperating Essays; Exercises in Dialectical Method, Peoples'

Publishing House, Poone, 1957.

5. KOSAMBI, D.D., Indian Numismatics, (Introduction by B.D. Chattapadhyaya),

Orient Longman, Hiderabad, 1991.

6. KOSAMBI, D.D., Myth and Reality, Popular Prakasan, Bombay, 1983.

7. KOSAMBI, D.D., Science, Society & Peace, Academy of Political and Social Studies,

Pune, 1986.

Journals and Articles

8. KOSAMBI, D.D., "Beginning of the Iron Age in India", Journal of the Economic and

Social History of the Orient, Vol. 6, No. 3, Dec., 1963.

79

9. KOSAMBI, D.D., "Brahmin Clans", Journal of Journal of the American Oriental

Society, Vol. 73, No. 4, (Oct.-Dec., 1953).

10. KOSAMBI, D.D., "Grains' in the Western Deccan", Man, Vol. 63, Aug., 1963.

11. KOSAMBI, D.D., "Indian Feudal Trade Charters", Journal of the Economic and

Social History of the Orient, Vol. 2, No. 3, Dec., 1959.

12. KOSAMBI, D.D., "Megaliths in Poona District", Man, Vol. 62, May, 1962.

13. KOSAMBI, D.D., "Notes on the Kandahar Edict of Asoka", Journal of the Economic

and Social History of the Orient, Vol. 2, No. 2, May, 1959.

14. KOSAMBI, D.D., "Pierced Microliths from the Deccan Pkateau", Man, Vol. 62, Jan.,

1962.

15. KOSAMBI, D.D., "Prehistoric Rock Engravings near Poona", Man, Vol. 63, Apr.,

1963.

16. KOSAMBI, D.D., "Social and Economic Aspects of the Bhagavat Gita", Journal of

the Economic and Social History of the Orient, Vol. 4, No. 2, Aug.., 1961.

17. KOSAMBI, D.D., "the Autochthonous Element in the Mahabharatha", Journal of the

American Oriental Society, Vol. 85, No. 1, Jan.-Mar., 1964.

18. KOSAMBI, D.D., "The Basis of Ancient India History (I)", Journal of the American

Oriental Society, Vol. 75, No. 1, Jan.-Mar., 1955.

19. KOSAMBI, D.D., "The Basis of Ancient India History (II)", Journal of the American

Oriental Society, Vol. 75, No. 4, Oct.-Dec., 1955.

20. KOSAMBI, D.D., "the Pravasamgraha of the Mahabharata", Journal of the American

Oriental Society, Vol. 66, No. 2, Apr.-Jun., 1946.

21. KOSAMBI, D.D., "The Text of the Arthasastra", Journal of the American Oriental

Society, Vol. 78, No. 3, Jul.-Sep., 1958.

80

22. KOSAMBI, D.D., "the Vedic" Five Tribes", Journal of the American Oriental Society,

Vol. 87, No. 1, Jan.-Mar., 1967.

23. Party Programme of Communist Party of India, (Apr. 10-16) Hyderabad.

SECONDARY SOURCES

Books

1. BAILEY, ANNE, M. and LLOBERA, JOSEPH, R. (eds.), the Asiatic Mode of

Production--Science and Politics, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1981.

2. CHESNOKOV, D.I, Historical Materialism, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1969.

3. CHERIAN, P.J (ed.), Perspectives of Kerala History, Kerala Gazetteers, Govt. of

Kerala, 1999.

4. CORNFORTH, MAURICE, Dialectical Materialism, National Book Agency Private

Limited, Calcutta, 1997.

5. ENGELS, FREDERICK, Anti-Duhring, Foreign Languages Press, Peking, 1976.

6. GANESH, K.N (Mal.), Keralathinte Innalekal, Department of Cultural Publications,

Govt. Of Kerala, 1990.

7. HABIB, IRFAN (Mal. Trans.), India Charithram Vyakhyanam, Marxist Sameepanam,

Desabhimani Book House, Thiruvananthapuram, 1994.

8. KUSUMAN, K.K. (ed.), Issues In Kerala Historiography, International centre for

Kerala Studies, Thiruvananthapuram, 2003.

9. LENIN, V.I., On Utopian and Scientific Socialism, Progress Publishers, Moscow,

1976.

10. LENIN, V.I., Selected Works in three volumes, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1976.

11. MACLELLAN, DAVID, Marx's Grundrisse, Macmillan, 1971.

81

12. MARX, KARL and ENGELS, FREDERICK, Pre-Capitalist Socio-Economic

Formations, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1979.

13. MARX, KARL and ENGELS, FREDERICK, Manifesto of the Communist Party,

Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1977.

14. MARX, KARL and ENGELS, FREDERICK, Selected Works in Three Volume,

Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1973.

15. MARX, KARL and ENGELS, FREDERICK, The First Indian War of Independence,

1857-1859, Second Impression, Foreign Language Publishing House, Moscow, 1952.

16. MARX, KARL, Capital, Vol. I., Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1977.

17. MARX, KARL, ENGELS, FREDERICK and LENIN, V.I. (Mal. Trans.), Dialectical

Materialism, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1978.

18. MARX, KARL, Preface and Introduction to A Contribution to Critique of Political

Economy, Foreign Languages Press, Peking, 1976.

19. NAMBOODIRIPAD, E.M.S. (Mal.), Kerala Charitram Marxist Veekshanathil,

Chintha Publishers, Thiruvananthapuram, 1990.

20. NAMBOODIRIPAD, E.M.S. (Mal.), Kerala Charitravum Samskaravum; Oru

Marxist Veekshanam, Chintha Publishers, Thiruvananthapuram, 2008.

21. NAMBOODIRIPAD, E.M.S. (Mal.), Keralam Malayalikalude Mathrubhoomi,

Collected Works, Vol. 9, Chintha Publishers, Thiruvananthapuram, 2000.

22. NAMBOODIRIPAD, E.M.S. (Mal.), Nammude Bhasha, Kerala Bhasha Institute,

Thiruvananthapuram, 1997.

23. NAMBOODIRIPAD, E.M.S. (Mal.), National Question Of Kerala, Vol. 11, Chintha

Publishers, Thiruvananthapuram, 2000.

82

24. NAMBOODIRIPAD, E.M.S., A History of Indian Freedom Struggle, Social Scientist

Press, Thiruvananthapuram, 1986.

25. PUNNAYYA, BASAVA (Mal. Trans.), On Party Programme of CPI(M), CPI(M)

publication, State Committee, Kerala, 1989.

26. RAJAN GURUKKAL and RAGHAVA VARIER, M.R. (ed.), Cultural History of

Kerala, Vol. I, Dept. of Cultural Publications, Govt. of Kerala, 1999.

27. SHARMA, R.S., Early Medieval Indian Society—A Study in Feudalism, Orient

Logman ltd, Calcutta, 2001.

28. SIVADASAN, S (ed.) (Mal.), Colonialism and Resistance movement in South India,

Rainbow Book Publishers, Eranakalum, 2008.

29. STALIN, J.V., Problems of Leninism, Foreign Language Press, Peking, 1976.

30. STALIN, J.V., Works, Vol. I, Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow, 1952.

31. THAPAR, ROMILA (ed.), Recent Perspectives of Early Indian History, Popular

Prakasan, Bombay, 1996.

32. THAPAR, ROMILA, History And Beyond, Oxford University Press, New Delhi,

2004.

33. THAPAR, ROMILA, The Penguin History of Early India, From the Origins to AD

1300, Penguin Books, New Delhi, 2003.

Journals and Articles

34. BASHAM, A.L., "Baba", a Personal Tribute", in R.S. Sharma and V. Jha (eds.),

Indian Society: Historical Probings: In Memory of D.D. Kosambi, Indian Council for

Historical Research, New Delhi, 1974.

35. BERNSTEIN, HOWARD, R., "Marxist Historiography and Methodology of Research

Programmes", un History and Theory, Vol. 20,No. 4, Dec. 1981.

83

36. BHATACHARYA, SABYASACHI, "Kosambi and the Discourse of Civilisaton", in

The Hindu, Thursday, Jul. 31, 2008.

37. CHAKRABARTI, KUNAL, "The Lili and the Mud; Kosambi on Religion", in

Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 43, No. 30, Jul. 26-Aug. 01, 2008.

38. CHANDRA, SUDHIR, "Modern Indian Historiography" in Economic and Political

Weekly, Vol. 7, No. 19, May 6, 1972.

39. CHATTOPADHYAYA, B.D., "D.D. Kosambi and the Study of Early Indian Coin",

in Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 43, No. 30, Jul. 26-Aug. 01, 2008.

40. CHOPRA, SUNEET, "The Approach of Karl Marx to the Study of Indian Society" in

Social Scientist, Vol. 11., No. 3, Mar., 1983.

41. DANIEL, D., "Historical Research in Modern Kerala-Problems and Scope" in K.K.

Kusuman (ed.), Issues in Kerala Historiography, International center for Kerala

Studies, 2003.

42. GANESH, K.N., "Historiographical Trends" in P.J. Cherian (ed.), Perspective of

Kerala History, Kerala Gazetteers, 1999.

43. GOKALE, V.V., "Damodar Dharmanad Kosambi", in Science and Human Progresss:

Prof. D.D. Kosambi Commemoration Volume, Popular Prakasan, Bombay, 1974.

44. GOTTLOB, MICHAEL (ed.), "D.D. Kosambi; the Difficulties Facing the Historians"

in Historical Thinking in South Asia-- a Hand Book from colonial times to the present,

Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 2003.

45. HABIB, IRFAN, "D.D. Kosambi and the construction of Marxist Historiography of

India" in the Marxist, XXIV 4, Oct.-Dec., 2008.

46. HAIBIB, IRFAN, "Kosambi, Marxism and History", in Economic and Political

Weekly, Vol. 43, No. 30, Jul. 26-Aug. 01, 2008.

84

47. HABIB, IRFAN, "Marx's Perception of India" in the Marxist, Vol. 1, Jul.-Sept., 1983.

48. ILAYIDAM, SUNIL, P. (Mal.), "D.D. Kosambi; Charithramezhuthile Viplavangal",

in Mthrubhoomi Weekly, Vol. 85, No. 23, Aug. 5-11, 2007.

49. JHA, D.N., "Damodar Dharmanad kosambi: A Scholar Extraordinaire" in the Marxist,

XXIV 4, Oct.-Dec., 2008.

50. KAREEM, C.K., "Kerala Historiography" in K.K. Kusuman (ed.), Issues in Kerala

Historiography, International center for Kerala Studies, 2003.

51. KOSAMBI, MEERA, "D.D. Kosambi: The Scholar and the Man", in Economic and

Political Weekly, Vol. 43, No. 30, Jul. 26-Aug. 01, 2008.

52. MANICKAVASAGOM, "Sources for the Study of Early History of Kerala" in K.K.

Kusuman (ed.), Issues in Kerala Historiography, International center for Kerala

Studies, 2003.

53. MONTEIRO, VIVEK, "Science is the Cognition of Necessity", in Economic and

Political Weekly, Vol. 43, No. 30, Jul. 26-Aug. 01, 2008.

54. NAMBOODIRIPAD, E.M.S., "Some Problems of Indian History", in Social Scientist,

Vol. 3, No. 9, Apr., 1975.

55. NOLTE, ERNST, "the Relationship between "Bourgeoisie" and "Marxist"

Historiography" in History and Theory, Vol. 14, No. 1, Feb., 1975.

56. PANIKKAR, K.N., “In Defence of ''Old” History" in Economic and Political Weekly,

Vol. 29, No. 40, Oct.1, 2004.

57. PATNAIK, PRBHATH, "D.D. Kosambi and the Frontiers of Historical Materialism",

in the Marxist, XXIV 4, Oct.-Dec., 2008.

58. PEACHY, PAUL, "Marxist Historiography of the Radical Reformation: Causality or

Covariation?", in Sixteenth Century Essays and Studies, Vol. 1, Jan. 1970.

85

59. POLLOCK, SHELDON, "Towards the Political Philology: D.D. Kosambi and

Sanskrit", in Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 43, No. 30, Jul. 26-Aug. 01, 2008.

60. RAGHAVA VARIER, M.R, "a Fresh look at Ordeals in Pre-Colonial Kerala" in K.K.

Kusuman (ed.), Issues in Kerala Historiography, International center for Kerala

Studies, 2003.

61. RAJAN GURUKKAL, "the Kosambi Effect: A Hermeneutic Turn that Shook Indian

Historiography", in Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 43, No. 30, Jul. 26-Aug. 01,

2008.

62. RAJAN GURUKKAL, Dr., "Marxist Historiography-Theoty and Method" in seminar

on History Working Today,Kerala Concil for Historical Rsearch.

63. RAJAN GURUKKAL, P.M., "Historical Antecedents" in P.J. Cherian (ed.),

Perspective of Kerala History, Kerala Gazetteers, 1999.

64. RANADE, SUDHANSHU, "History--Make It or Break It?", in the Hindu, Thursday,

Apr. 22, 2003.

65. RATNAKAR, SHEREEN, "Kosambi's Archaeology", in Economic and Political

Weekly, Vol. 43, No. 30, Jul. 26-Aug. 01, 2008.

66. RIEP, DALE, "D.D. Kosambi: Father on Scientific Indian History", in R.S. Sharma

and V. Jha (eds.), Indian Society: Historical Probing: In Memory of D.D. Kosambi,

Indian Council For Historical Research, New Delhi, 1974.

67. ROY, KUMKUM, "Kosambi and Question of Caste", in Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 43,

No. 30, Jul. 26-Aug. 01, 2008.

68. SADASIVAN, K., Dr., "Problems and Prospects of Historiography with special

Reference to the works of Ilamkulam P.N. Kunjan Pillai" in K.K. Kusuman (ed.),

Issues in Kerala Historiography, International center for Kerala Studies, 2003.

86

69. SHARMA, R.S., "How Feudal was Indian Feudalism" Social Scientist, Vol. 12, No. 2.,

1984.

70. SRINIVAS, M.N., "Modern Indian Historiography" in Economic and Political

Weekly, Vol. 7, No. 15, (Apr. 8, 1972).

71. THAPAR, ROMILA, "Early Indian History and the Legacy of D.D. Kosambi.", in

Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 43, No. 30, Jul. 26-Aug. 01, 2008.

72. THAVARAJ, M.J.K., "the Concept of Asiatic Mode of Production: Its Relevance to

Indian", Social Scientist, Vol. 12, No. &. Jul., 1984.

73. THERBORN, GORAN, "Karl Marx Returning", in Internatioanal Political Science

Review, Vol. 7, No. 2, 1986,

74. VARGEES, K., GEORGE (Mal.), "Marxism Anthima Vidhiyalla", in Mathrubhoomi

Weekly, Vol. 85, No. 53, Mar. 8-14, 2009.

75. VELUTHAT, KESAVAN, Dr., "D.D. Kosambi in Indian Historiography," in seminar

on History Working Today, Kerala Council for Historical Research.

76. VELUTHAT, KESAVAN, Dr., "Reading Kosambi once Again," in T.R.

Venugopalan, History and Theory, Thrissur, 1997.

Website Referred

1. “D.D. Kosambi, Marxist, historian, India”,

http://www.indiavideo.org/text/kosambi-marxist-historian-india-

1274.php?pg=77#R

2. DESHMUKH, CHINTAMANI ,“Dr. Damodar Dharmananda Kosambi Life and

Work”, http://www.vidyaonline.net/arvindgupta/ddkbio.pdf

3. Geocities, www.geocities.com

4. Jstor, www.jstor.org.

87

5. “PERSONAL REMINSCENCES of Prof. D. D. Kosambi By Sri R. P. Nene as

told to Arvind Gupta”, http://www.vidyaonline.net/arvindgupta/nene.pdf

6. SEN, ARINADM, “D.D. Kosambi Blazed a new Trail, Lefts follow It”,

www.cpiml/liberation/year_2007/july/dd_kosambi_tribute.htm