I am recently on a reading spree on history; some topics I am interested in are pre-history (way-back-when to around 1ooo BC), Indian especially South Indian history and history of languages.
If you share similar interests, here are some fascinating reads:
- The Third Chimpanzee by Jared Diamond follows his popular award winning Guns Germs and Steel. If you haven't read Guns, Germs and Steel, you can give it a miss and go straight to this one. That is because the entire thesis of the former book is condensed conveniently into one chapter of this book - a discussion of why human civilization advanced more rapidly in Europe than say in Africa. Diamond says the key to advancement lies in domestication of animals (cattle, horses) and plants (for agriculture and mass production) and Europe offered some geographical advantages in this regard - an east-west orientation with similar climate/geography over a wide land mass, availability of animals and crops for domestication . I am super-simplifying here, but that I think is the gist.
Diamond's analysis on where the Proto Indo-European (or PIE) language originated is especially interesting. PIE is the hypothetical root of all Indo-Aryan languages including Sanskrit and its Indian derivatives and most of the major European languages (also called Aryan languages). Diamond's conjecture is that PIE originated somewhere in Central/East Europe. Of particular interest is how he arrives at this, read the book for the analysis - some heady stuff.
The chapters talking about the microcultures of Papua New Guinea are another compelling part of the book. Due to the peculiar geography of New Guinea, it sustained many tribes that lived within 10s of miles of each other without ever coming in contact with each other nor with any other developed society until the mid 1900s when European explorers discovered them. These tribes apparently speak wildly different languages with some resembling Chinese while others resemble European languages. The island is a dream "laboratory" for sociologists and anthropologists.
- An Illustrated History of South India by K.A. Nilakanda Sastri (Oxford press): I am half-way through this book. Nilakanda Sastri's book is now more than 60 years old and is considered the definitive compilation of South Indian history. The latest edition is probably the most readable one - I had got an earlier edition which was more dense that I gave up after a couple of chapters. The new paperback is an abridged edition with pictures that is more accessible to mere mortals.
The first part of the book focuses on the political history, i.e. the empires, the kings, the wars they waged and the territories they controlled - the stuff we all learnt growing up in India in History class; those text books were probably based on this book. The later part (which I haven't read yet) is about social & religious history.
Some highlights from the book so far: the dynastic enmity between Pallavas and Chalukyas (6th to 9th centuries AD) is one of the juicier bits of South Indian history. The Tamilnadu State Board history textbooks portrayed the Chalukyas in a somewhat negative light as compared to the beloved Pallavas who were not just great warriors but also great stalvarts of art and architecture (I am pretty sure Kannadigas are taught a somewhat different version). Kalki fed on this in his Sivakamiyin Sabatham which is loosely based on historical events, where he shows Pulakesin II, the Chalukyan king to be an outright villain . The enmity has enough twists and turns complete with sons avenging father's defeats.
Well, the history according to Sastri is almost as dramatic. First, Pulakesin II invades the Pallava kingdom and comes close to Kanchi before he gets stopped 15 miles away. He still annexes a lot of North Pallava territory from Mahendra Pallava. Mahendra's son, Narasimha Pallava exacts revenge by defeating Pulakesin II (Pualakesin dies in this battle) and plundering his capital Vatapi (now called Badami). A couple of generations later, a Chalukyan king returns the favor on Kanchi. And so on.
Other than his mixed results with the Pallavas (which Tamilians and Kannadigas should probably agree on as a draw), Pulakhesin II was a great king in his own right. There is no historical basis for his villainy. He was just as territorially ambitious as the next guy, I mean emperor. Don't forget that he stopped the north Indian emperor Harsha Vardhana dead on his tracks at the banks of Narmada and hence perhaps stopped another round of "Aryanization" from ever happening (now that is a juicy topic for another post). You see, the whole of India has been united under an empire only a couple of times (by my count) in history before the British - Ashoka & Aurangazeb. If Harsha had beaten Pulakhesin, that could have led to one more instance.*
None of this is to take away from the greatness of the Pallavas - you just need to visit Mahabalipuram if you have any doubts.
Enough for now, more later.
- Balaji
* The bit about the significance of Harsha's defeat at Pulakesin's hands is my amateur point, not Sastri's.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Keezhadi Museum
Around 2015, the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) made an exciting new archaeological discovery south-east of Madurai in the Keezhadi ...
I have recently been in pursuit for a good book on South Indian history. Not knowing where to begin, I checked out some old book stores in Madurai and found the book, History of Tamilnad(to A.D. 1565)by Dr. N. Subrahmanian. It was hard to read - too elaborate and detailed. History this profound with no interesting descriptive exhausts me. But still the book lies on my coffee table, so I get to read bits and pieces now and then.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the suggestions. All of them sound interesting.
I got the 'A history of South India' by Sastri last year (based on your recommendation, I should add!) and forced myself to get through the first 4 chapters. Filled with dense details of dates and names, it reminded me why I hated my history classes back in high school!
ReplyDeleteFrom your post, sounds like the newer edition of Sastri's book is much better. Maybe, I will get that one. Or, maybe I will wait until you give an update after you get through the chapters on social and religious history.
Oops, even the latest edition is quite dense as I am finding out. But I find it manageable because I am connecting the raw data with other things I am reading. I will try and summarize the key "takeaways" after I finish it.
ReplyDeleteBalaji, thanks for another thought-provoking post. As I read your post, I feel a rush of thoughts (and emotions as well), and am surprised that I know/understand very little about (Southern) Indian history, language, culture, and religion.
ReplyDeleteFor example, I would love to know how population was distributed across India over time -- I could find web references that indicate that the population of India (loosely defined, I guess) in 1700 is about 125 million, but I wonder what it was during the times of the Cholas and the Pallavas and the Pandiyas. My curiosity arises from the following line of thought: as much as all these empire builders (before the British) added territory to fall their rule, I wonder what real effect they had. Take Alauddin Khilji or Aurangzeb, for example, whose "empires" came all the way down to Vaigai or so. I feel that what this statement really means is that said king won some battles or a longer-running war over some other ruler, plundered their wealth in a short-term sense, and left. Neither the conqueror nor his filial successors had any lasting impact on the farther-flung territories. Same goes for Pulakesi's conquest almost all the way down to Kanchi, and Narasimhavarman's conquest of Vatapi -- battles were won, territory was annexed, but no lasting impact was left. The rulers or their successors probably made sure they collected (the equivalent of) taxes for a while, but again, I wonder how sustained this was. I can't speak for the other Dravidian cultures, but it seems to me that the cultural blend of the (primarily) Tamil empires (Cholas, Pallavas, and the Pandiyas) has remained largely intact through all the invasions and redrawing of the maps.
(Comment to be continued in Part 2, since Blogspot wouldn't accept comments beyond 4096 characters!)
Continued:
ReplyDeleteThis, to me, sets the British rule of India apart from Ashoka's or Aurangzeb's: the plundering was systematic and sustained, and the cultural bequest was far-reaching. Some of this, of course, is a matter of timing and the fact that the British rule coincided with the time science and technology developed significantly so "modern" transportation (railroads, automobiles) and communication in India is often ascribed to the British rule.
Thinking some more about this, it seems that the primary bequest of various rulers is in terms of the art and architecture they "sponsored". Literature and poetry might have survived even without rulers' generosity. As far as I can tell, the influence of Indian (others as well?) rulers on agriculture is somewhat minimal (save for the occasional dam and canals one reads about). Religion seems to have been far more influential in the daily lives of the people, as well as in poetry and music. Returning to the influence of rulers on art and architecture, by definition, these seem limited to a small radius close to their capitals (Kanchi, Mahabalipuram, Thanjavur, Madurai, etc.). And, of course, there are lesser works of architecture in places farther off, likely sponsored by small-time rulers who dutifully paid their dues to the nearest empire builder.
A good benchmark of "lasting impact" left by a ruler is to evaluate to what extent various languages spread: thus, if Narasimhavarman's conquest of Vatapi were to have a lasting impact, the conquest should have seen Tamil settlers in and around Vatapi, culminating in the popularity of Thirkkural or Kambaramayanam in that region. By this measure, the British empire builders were far more successful in India than any of the Indian rulers.
Oh well, looks like my ramble is getting longer than your post :-)
Eagerly looking forward to Part 2 of the post.
--Siva
ps: Since you mentioned Sivagamiyin Sabatham, I thought I'd point out that another interesting take on the Pallavas (primarily Mahendravarman) is in Kovi. Manisekaran's "Kanchi Kathiravan" (though I am not at all sure about its historical authenticity, it reads in parts more like a Tamil movie). Another interesting, likely more rooted in history than in imagination, is Ra. Ki. Rangarajan's "Naan, Krishnadevarayan" - great writing, and very interesting tidbits about the life and times from a millennium ago.
Siva, as for the way the conquests between South Indian kings went, it seems like it played out like what you mention for the most part. Each of these empires controlled their core territory and governed them well; beyond these core territories they were constantly expanding and shrinking based on a seemingly continuous test of mutual strenghts with their neighbours. These expansions seem to have been so short-lived that they couldn't have set up a system of governance.
ReplyDeleteAnother thing that struck me was that while the average king was in some battle almost every 2-3 years, his tenure lasted 20-25 years on average. i.e. There was political stability in general in spite of seemingly continuous warfare.
I will check out Kanchi Kathiravan.
Hmmm The British are much maligned. They discovered Ajanta & Ellora, Asoka & his pillars, dug Mamallapuram out of sand, restored Kailasanatha temple in Kanchi from burial, abolished slavery and sathi, built India's bridges, roads and railways, brought industrialisation, excavated the Indus valley & Khajuraho, discoverd Indo-European as a language group, ditto dravidian, gave us democracy, our financial system, educational system, legal system, medical system, completely revamped our army, navy, made them professional, integrated the country, conducted a geographical survey, mapped India....they also ruined our commercial shipping, devastated and Europeanised administration, wreaked havoc on manufacturing (with the Industrial revolution), more havoc on agriculture and irrigation, and made Hindus ashamed of Hinduism :-)
ReplyDeleteBy the way Asoka's nationalization of Buddhism had its long lasting impact, but the impact lasted longer outside India. The arrival of Islam created great changes in language, literature, arts, administration, economics, clothing, water management and probably agriculture. Malik Kafur (general of Khilji) probably was more devastating for Hinduism than Aurangazeb.
Pallavas, Cholas made tremendous administrative and agricultural improvements - not just sculpture and temples and music and dance and wars. Malik Kafur and Ulug khan's invasions devastated these. Effectively during later Vijayanagar and Chola period, there was far more centralization; local autonomy was devastated.
Gopu