Two primary tools are used to understand history: epigraphy and hagiography. While epigraphy remains static and inflexible—etched onto stone or metal surfaces—its interpretation has allowed historians to project their versions of a country’s history. Manuscripts, on the other hand, have played an entirely different role. Their flexibility has often been exploited, including the creation of fabricated manuscripts to present misleading narratives. This practice has particularly misled many sincere and serious scholars in India, especially during the initial stages when they relied on Pandits to interpret Sanskrit manuscripts.
Although I would not label this outright cheating, Pandits, for various reasons—whether to please their colonial patrons or to aid Orientalists and missionaries in tracing their own history within Indian history—manufactured fake manuscripts, presenting them as ancient texts. This practice misled Orientalists and other Indologists profoundly. Professor Sharma, in his outstanding book Hinduism and Its Sense of History, [New Delhi, Oxford, 2003] provides a detailed account of how this transpired. Instead of summarizing his observations myself, I will share Sharma’s insights directly.
Before quoting him, I’d like to highlight one of his fascinating points (note 71): “In terms of macroeconomic theory, what we have here is Say’s Law [see Appendix] operating in reverse: demand creating its own supply.” This ironic reversal—demand driving the creation of counterfeit manuscripts—is both amusing and alarming.
The East India Company and the British Raj were notorious for extracting raw materials from India to manufacture finished goods, which they then sold back to the colonies. Similarly, just as indigo production led to famine and opium was used to entrap the Chinese, the “finished products” in the form of these manufactured manuscripts returned to India. Their effects persist even today, as some Indian evangelicals use these falsified documents to locate their faith—whether Old Testament accounts or New Testament references—within these spurious manuscripts. The famous Ezhur Vedam [see Appendix] a fake document produced by Catholic is a famous example for this. Even prominent Indian thinkers like Pandit Nehru were misled by such fabrications. In The Discovery of India, he writes:
“There is an old book, of the tenth century, which gives us some idea of Indian polity as it was conceived prior to the Turkish and Afghan invasions. This is the Nitisara, the Science of Polity, by Shukracharya…” [The Discovery of India [New York: The John Day Company, 1946]
As noted by Professor Sharma in note 82 of his work (Hinduism and Its Sense of History), such references underscore the influence of fabricated texts on historical interpretations. (Sharma, p. 29).
From Prof Sharma:
…Somewhat comparable phenomena occurred in a few cases when enthusiastic British scholars and civil servants turned avidly to the reconstruction of India’s past through a study of its ancient texts.70 Apparently in some cases their enthusiasm for the collection of these texts itself lead to the appearance of these texts; the active role they played in the collection of manuscripts influenced the availability of these manuscripts at least arguably in the following two cases. 71
The first case relates to a text called the Sukranīti, a text at one time generally ‘utilized as a source for the early medieval period, especially the eleventh or the twelfth century’.72 In keeping with this practice, however, when Bhakat Prasad Mazumdar utilized this text as a source in his book The Socio-Economic History of Norther India (11th and 12 centuries), K. A. Nilakanta Sastri pointed out in his review of that book: ‘opinion is gaining ground of late that the Sukranītisāra is really not a work of any considerable antiquity’. 73 Scholarly opinion had been drawn in this direction by the remarks made by Professor V Raghavan74 and taking the cue from him,75 the Natisastra of Sukra has ‘now been shown with practical certainty to be a work of the early nineteenth century.’76
…
What motive underlay the composition of this work? Lallanji Gopal as suggested two main motives; while admitting that ‘it is difficult to speak of the motives which actuated the modern writer of Sukraniti’, he proposed that the author
May have aimed at pleasing a liberal Sahib who was interested in unearthing lost Sanskrit texts. By presenting a polity in conformity with the practice of the East (p. 17) India Company he may have wanted to earn the good will of his officers, or else in a patriotic spirit wished to trace some of the details of the administrative machinery of the East India Company back to ancient India.78
At another point he suggests:
another possible motive for the production of such a work. It is well known that the East India Company often took charge of the administration of the subordinate rulers on the pretext that they were not efficient and just. It might be that some such Indian ruler, by combining something of the East India Company’s administration with ancient Indian practices, wished to convey the impression that his government was based on just and sound principles. 79
It is clear, therefore, that in either case the motive probably had something to do with pleasing the British sahib. Thus the appearance of the manuscript is in any case connected with the coming of the British-and, what is more, it may even have been directly the result of British interest in Indian antiquities…. Professor K. A. Nilakanta Sastri…. states that ‘the Sukranītisāra is now suspected to be an early nineteenth century hoax calculated to satisfy the comprehensive curiosity of Col. Mackenzie.’82—pp. 17-18
The second case relates to the Puranas. It is a popular belief in many circles that information based on the Puranas was instrumental, or at least helpful, in determining the source of the Nile….Prof D. D. Kosambi supplies even more details when he recounts that ‘when J. H. Speke first discovered the Puranas’ with the help of Lieutenant Wilford of Bombay the ‘turned out to represent the inner African local names with startling accuracy.’84
In his review of the book in which this statement occurs, Professor D. H. Ingalls pointed out that this popular view is misleading.
The actual facts deserve mention. Francis Wilford was one of the first European Sanskritists. His study of Sanskrit was prompted in large part by his desire to secure corroboration of Biblical history from Indian tradition. Among his methods of pursuing this end was to recite stories from the Old Testament to a certain pandit, asking this pandit if similar stories could be found in Sanskrit. The pandit duly (p.18) ‘discovered’ a circumstantial account of Noah in the Padmapurāņa and an account of Egypt and the Nile in the Skandapurāņa. As for the story of Noah, the pandit seems to have composed it himself, copied it down and inserted it into a Padmapurāņa MS. With the account of Egypt his method was simpler, being to erase geographical names in Skandapurāņa MS and write in their place miśradeśa (Arabic miśr = Egypt) or guptadeśa (gupta was taken by Wilford as = Aiguptos). Wilford published a long article on the Puranic accounts of Egypt in Asiatick Researches in 1805. Half a century later the explorer Speke was given a copy of Wilford’s map. Unaware of Wilford’s apology and supposing that all of this cartographic information derived from Indian sources, Speke was easily misled into imputing a particular knowledge of Africa to the ancient Hindus. 85
It is clear therefore, that Western participation in Indian historiography by itself influenced the historical material on which this historiography is based. However, the critical nature of the historical method is such that in course of time this ‘influence’ itself was identified and its results detected. But it also raises the further question: is it possible that some elements in modern Indian historiography, which are taken for granted as facts, may be the product of Western Christian enthusiasms for historical documents and Indian responsiveness in satisfying it unbeknownst to us? It is thus useful to bear in mind that the Heisenberg principle [See Appendix] also applies to Indology and should put Indologists on guard against being too-certain about some ‘facts’.86—pp. 17-19
72 Lallanji Gopal, ‘The Sukraniti—A Nineteenth Century Text’, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, Vol. XXV: Pt 3, 1962, p. 524
73. Ibid. ;74. Ibid. ;75. Ibid.
76. A. L. Basham. The Wonder that was India (third revised edition) (New Delhi: Rupa & Co. 1999 (1954]), p. 81
78. Lallanji Gopal, op. cit. p. 551
79. Ibid. p. 553
82. K. A. Nilakanta Sastri, Sources of Indian History with Special Reference to South India (New York: Asia Publishing House, 1964, p. 28. It is curious that A. L. Basham (op. cit., p. 81 fn.) does not refer to this aspect of the issue at all. Jawaharlal Nehru relies on this source heavily for his depiction of ancient Indian polity…—p. 29
84 Damodar Dharmanand Kosambi, An Introduction to the Study of Indian History (Bombay: Popular Book Depot, 1956), p. 230
85. ibid. pp. 224-5. The following item of information also belongs here: ‘Francis Wilford (c. 1760-1822) had served in the company’s engineers, spending the latter part of his life at Banaras. He studied ancient Indian geography and tried to show that the British Isles were mentioned in the Puranas (M. A. Laird, ed., Bishop Heber in Northern India: Selections from Heber’s Journal [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 19710, p. 223, note 1)
86. The following remarks also illustrate the operation of the Heisenberg principle: “No sustained attempt was made to place the source material in the context of its contemporary background. The sources, particularly those in Sanskrit, were in the main the works of the brahmans, as keepers of the ancient classical tradition, and expressed the Brahmanical Weltanschauung. The fact that these were texts emanating from and relating to a particular segment of society was often overlooked, though in fairness to the Orientalists it must be said that the critical and analytical study of literature from other classical cultures was still in its infancy. The reliance on “pandits”, those learned in Sanskrit and supposedly the guardians of the ancient tradition, was not the most reliable-although undoubtedly the most convenient— access to ancient history. Many of the contemporary ideological prejudices of the pandits were often incorporated into what was believed to be the interpretation of the ancient tradition. This vitiated the study of “ancient culture”, particularly the section of it which was concerned with the law-books and legal codes, the dharma-shastras. (Romila Thapar, Ancient Indian Social History: Some Interpretations, New Delhi: Orient Longman, 1978, pp. 3-4).
Gurukulam
13-12-2024
Appendix
Ezhur Vedam
The term Ezhur Vedam (sometimes transliterated as Ezour Vedam) refers to a controversial text presented as an ancient Hindu scripture but was later identified as a fabricated work by Christian missionaries, likely Jesuits, in the 18th century. This text was created with the intent of facilitating the conversion of Hindus to Christianity by introducing theological dialogues that aligned with Christian doctrine.
The Ezourvedam gained attention in Europe after being cited by prominent figures like Voltaire, who believed it represented an ancient and authentic tradition of Indian thought. However, scholarly research revealed that the text was not an authentic part of the Hindu canon. Instead, it was written in French and designed to appear like a Sanskrit scripture, with intentions to be later translated into Indian languages. The text is now regarded as an example of colonial-era religious and cultural misrepresentation. Detailed studies, such as those by Ludo Rocher, document its history and purpose, emphasizing its role in inter-religious dynamics during the colonial period【10†source】【11†source】.—accessed by ChatGBT, 13-12-2024
Say’s Law
Say’s Law, attributed to French economist Jean-Baptiste Say, is a principle in classical economics often summarized as “supply creates its own demand.” It suggests that the production of goods and services generates an equivalent amount of income, which in turn enables the consumption of these goods and services. Essentially, it posits that in a free market, production will inherently lead to consumption, dismissing the possibility of prolonged overproduction or unemployment due to lack of demand.
The principle played a significant role in economic thought before the Keynesian revolution. John Maynard Keynes critiqued Say’s Law, arguing that demand deficiencies could lead to prolonged economic downturns, as demonstrated in the Great Depression. Keynes highlighted the importance of aggregate demand management to ensure economic stability, marking a shift from classical to Keynesian economics . —accessed by ChatGBT, 13-12-2024
Heisenberg Principle
The Heisenberg principle, more formally known as the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, is a foundational concept in quantum mechanics proposed by physicist Werner Heisenberg in 1927. It states that:
It is impossible to simultaneously measure both the position and the momentum (or velocity) of a particle with absolute precision. The more accurately one is measured, the less precisely the other can be determined.
In simpler terms:
This principle reflects the inherent limitations of observation at the quantum level.
It’s not about the limitations of instruments but about the fundamental nature of particles.
Application in a Broader Context:
In non-scientific fields, like philosophy, history, or religion (as in Arvind Sharma’s work), the Heisenberg principle is often used metaphorically to illustrate the idea that:
1. Observer Bias: The act of observing or analyzing something can affect or change the subject being studied.
2. Limits of Certainty: There are intrinsic limitations to how much we can know or understand about certain aspects of reality. —accessed by ChatGBT, 11-12-2024
Leave a Reply