Comprehension

The production of histories of India has become very frequent in recent years and may well call for some explanation. Why so many and why this one in particular? The reason is a two-fold one: changes in the Indian scene requiring a re-interpretation of the facts and changes in attitudes of historians about the essential elements of Indian history. These two considerations are in addition to the normal fact of fresh information, whether in the form of archeological discoveries throwing fresh light on an obscure period or culture, or the revelations caused by the opening of archives or the release of private papers. The changes in the Indian scene are too obvious to need emphasis. Only two generations ago British rule seemed to most Indian as well as British observers likely to extend into an indefinite future; now there is a teenage generation which knows nothing of it. Changes in the attitudes of historians have occurred everywhere, changes in attitudes to the content of the subject as well as to particular countries, but in India there have been some special features. Prior to the British, Indian historiographers were mostly Muslims, who relied, as in the case of Sayyid Ghulam Hussain, on their own recollection of events and on information from friends and men of affairs. Only a few like Abu’l Fazl had access to official papers. These were personal narratives of events, varying in value with the nature of the writer. The early British writers were officials. In the 18th century they were concerned with some aspect of Company policy, or like Robert Orme in his Military Transactions gave a straight narrative in what was essentially a continuation of the Muslim tradition. In the early 19th century the writers were still, with two notable exceptions, officials, but they were now engaged in chronicling, in varying moods of zest, pride, and awe, the rise of the British power in India to supremacy. The two exceptions were James Mill, with his critical attitude to the Company and John Marchman, the Baptist missionary. But they, like the officials, were anglo-centric in their attitude, so that the history of modern India in their hands came to be the history of the rise of the British in India.
The official school dominated the writing of Indian history until we get the first professional historian’s approach. Ramsay Muir and P. E. Roberts in England and H. H. Dodwell in India. Then Indian historians trained in the English school joined in, of whom the most distinguished was Sir Jadunath Sarkar and the other notable writers: Surendranath Sen, Dr Radhakumud Mukherji, and Professor Nilakanta Sastri. They, it may be said, restored India to Indian history, but their bias was mainly political. Finally have come the nationalists who range from those who can find nothing good or true in the British to sophisticated historical philosophers like K. M. Panikker.
Along the types of historians with their varying bias have gone changes in the attitude to the content of Indian history. Here Indian historians have been influenced both by their local situation and by changes of thought elsewhere. It is this field that this work will claim some attention since it seeks to break new ground, or perhaps to plenen a freshly turned furrow in the field of historiography. The early official historians wrote of empires. To them a fresh turn was lent from the rise of the Mutiny, from Dupleix to the Sikhs. But when the raj was settled down, glamour departed from politics, and they turned to the less glorious but more solid ground of administration. Not how India was conquered but how it was governed was the theme of this school of historians. It found its archpriest in H. H. Dodwell, its priestess in Dame Lilian Penson, and its chief shrine in the Volume VI of the Cambridge History of India. Meanwhile, in Britain other currents were moving, which led historical study into the economic and social fields. R. C. Dutt entered the first of these currents with his Economic History of India to be followed more recently by the whole group of Indian economic historians. W. E. Moreland extended these studies to the Mughal Period. Social history is now being increasingly studied and there is also of course a school of nationalist historians who see modern Indian history in terms of the rise and the fulfillment of the national movement.
All these approaches have value, but all share in the quality of being compartmental. It is not enough to remove political history from its pedestal of being the only kind of history worth having if it is merely to put other types of history in its place. Too exclusive an attention to economic, social, or administrative history can be as sterile and misleading as too much concentration on politics. A whole subject needs a whole treatment for understanding. A historian must dissect his subject into its elements and then fuse them together again into an integrated whole. The true history of a country must contain all the features just cited but must present them as parts of a single consistent theme

Question: 1

Which of the following may be the closest in meaning to the statement "restored India to Indian history"?

Show Hint

Focus on identifying the key shift in perspective or focus implied by the original phrase.
Updated On: Aug 4, 2025
  • Indian historians began writing Indian history.
  • Trained historians began writing Indian history.
  • Writing India-centric Indian history began.
  • Indian history began to be written in India.
Hide Solution
collegedunia
Verified By Collegedunia

The Correct Option is C

Solution and Explanation

The phrase refers to changing the focus of Indian history from being British-centric to focusing on Indian perspectives and priorities. Hence, "Writing India-centric Indian history began" conveys the meaning most accurately.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 2

Which of the following is the closest implication of the statement "to break new ground, or perhaps to deepen a freshly turned furrow"?

Show Hint

When interpreting metaphors, relate them to the subject matter—in this case, historiography and new perspectives.
Updated On: Aug 4, 2025
  • Dig afresh or dig deeper.
  • Start a new stream of thought or help establish a recently emerged perspective.
  • Begin or conduct further work on existing archeological sites to unearth new evidence.
  • Begin writing a history free of any biases.
Hide Solution
collegedunia
Verified By Collegedunia

The Correct Option is B

Solution and Explanation

The metaphor refers to initiating new approaches or perspectives in historical research rather than literal digging or bias removal. Option (2) captures both possibilities mentioned in the phrase.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 3

Historians moved from writing political history to writing administrative history because:

Show Hint

Look for causal relationships in the passage linking historical trends to historians' choices.
Updated On: Aug 4, 2025
  • attitudes of the historians changed.
  • the \textit{raj} was settled down.
  • politics did not retain its past glamour.
  • administrative history was based on solid ground.
Hide Solution
collegedunia
Verified By Collegedunia

The Correct Option is C

Solution and Explanation

The passage explicitly states that when the \textit{raj} settled down, politics lost its glamour and historians turned to administrative history. This matches option (3) most closely.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 4

According to the author, which of the following is not among the attitudes of Indian historians of Indian origin?

Show Hint

Identify statements in the passage that represent recommendations rather than descriptions of current practice.
Updated On: Aug 4, 2025
  • Writing history as personal narratives.
  • Writing history with political bias.
  • Writing non-political history due to lack of glamour.
  • Writing history by dissecting elements and integrating them again.
Hide Solution
collegedunia
Verified By Collegedunia

The Correct Option is D

Solution and Explanation

The author presents this approach as an ideal or prescription for historians, not as an existing attitude. Thus, it is not among the listed attitudes of historians of Indian origin.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 5

In the table given below, match the historians to the approaches taken by them:
A. AdministrativeERobert Orme
B. PoliticalFH.H. Dodwell
C. NarrativeGRadha Kumud Mukherji
D. EconomicHR.C. Dutt

Show Hint

When matching, refer back to explicit associations given in the passage rather than inferred ones.
Updated On: Aug 4, 2025
  • A–F, B–G, C–E, D–H
  • A–G, B–F, C–E, D–H
  • A–E, B–F, C–G, D–H
  • A–F, B–H, C–E, D–G
Hide Solution
collegedunia
Verified By Collegedunia

The Correct Option is B

Solution and Explanation

From the passage: - Administrative: Radha Kumud Mukherji (G) - Political: H.H. Dodwell (F) - Narrative: Robert Orme (E) - Economic: R.C. Dutt (H) This matches option (2).
Was this answer helpful?
0
0

Top Questions on Reading Comprehension

View More Questions