Introduction*

READING HISTORY
Zaheer Ali*** History is perhaps the most perilous and at once the most vulnerable of all social sciences. Unlike John Luckacs, Gerhard Ritter and others who insist that history should be treated as an 'art' or a discipline of humanities, I, like E. H. Carr, maintain that history is a social science mainly because the historical accounts are not, and should not be produced with the power of the imagination (as is the case of arts) but should be deeply rooted in social, political, economic, psychological and cultural realities of the times, which are under inquiry by the historians. So far as history being the most perilous of social sciences is concerned it must be underlined that a distorted version of it may cause horrifying occurrences such as riots, pogroms or even civil wars in societies that are heterogeneous in terms of ethnicity, religion and culture. In such a society, the economically and politically dominant group tends to use, rather misuse, the real, but more often than not, the imaginary atrocities committed by the other group in the past to subjugate it in all respects in the present. This is not only true about the region of South Asia but all pluralistic societies. Secondly, history is also the most vulnerable of all social sciences because with every political change, history becomes the first casualty. The new ruling clique usually undertakes a project to rewrite history which must show the people, race, religion and culture to which it belongs in the most propitious colours. We can cite quite a few examples of communalising history from the countries of the Indian subcontinent and it is also true that these distorted historical accounts have occasionally led to the outbreak of communal violence. In fact, in pre-independent India, in addition to the differing economic and political arguments, conflicting historical perceptions constituted the vital component of the 'two-nation theory' that ultimately partitioned the country. Despite the pitfalls just mentioned, history is a discipline of great consequences. The oft-repeated axiom of George Santayana that 'those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it' is loaded with truth. The crucial point is that we must remember a truthful, unbiased and unprejudiced account of history. Studied with a spirit of objectivity and openness history may offer feasible alternatives to the predicaments of the present. It is only through history we know why we do certain things that we often do and, more often than not, without being aware of the relevance of our actions. Many of the socio-cultural and even economic practices cannot reveal their true significance unless we know the history behind them. It is a matter of common knowledge that our past hands over a set of values, norms and rules of social behaviour to us, which we are expected to cherish and observe. It is also expected from the present generation to pass on the values and norms that it has inherited along with the values and norms it has created on its own to the next generation. It is because of this reason it is logically argued that the son of a father is more intelligent because he not only inherits the historical experiences his father inherited from his ancestors but he also inherits the experiences of his father. This also explains how important is the practice of writing down the historical accounts so that the future generations can benefit from them. It is how the historical account is presented or with what viewpoint it is interpreted that is problematic. One often hears terms like objectivity and neutrality in this context. It implies that the historical account be free from all religious, sectarian, ideological and cultural
1

biases. Obviously it sounds reasonable. Nevertheless, it is quite possible that many historical accounts purportedly written with utmost objectivity and strict neutrality on the part of the historians may appear bizarre, preposterous, regressive or outright meaningless if they are taken into consideration devoid of their religious, cultural, sequential or geographical contexts. It was Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406) who first underlined that the cultural differences of another era must not be lost sight of while assessing any historical account. He also emphasised the 'need for experience' along with rational principles for evaluating a culture of a bygone age. Ibn Khaldun, more often than not refused to give uncritical credence to superstitions and traditional historical narratives that are handed over by the past to the new generations. He is appropriately acclaimed for pioneering a scientific method to the study of history. Ibn Khaldun is best known for his Muqaddimah (known as Prolegomenon in English) that was first published in 1377. The Prolegomenon was, in fact, the introduction to his sevenvolume Kitabu-l-'ibar (Universal History) but because of its length and philosophical content, it came to be treated as a separate and the most valuable volume. It is because of Muqaddimah that Ibn Khaldun is universally known as the 'father of historiography' and also as the 'father of philosophy of history.' Ibn Khaldun is also regarded the father of the discipline of sociology wherein he is credited to develop a theory of social contract. Some scholars point out that the Muqaddimah is also a sociological treatise in which he discusses politics, urban life, economics and knowledge. The central notion of the work is what is known in Arabic as 'asabiyyah' that is usually translated as 'social cohesion' or sometimes as 'tribalism'. He argues that social cohesion comes naturally to the persons belonging to a tribe and it gets firmed up further because of religion. Applying his sociological tools of analysis to the study of history, Ibn Khaldun expounds that the political, economic, sociological and psychological reasons for the downfall of a tribe are innately set in the cohesion itself. His argument is that a sedentary social order, rich in art, culture with an appreciable level of opulence is more likely to be vanquished by a nomadic group of warriors. In turn, when the victorious social group reaches the zenith of grandeur and opulence it is more likely to be defeated by a new horde of soldiers of fortune. In such manner the march of history continues and dynasties keep appearing and fading on the horizon of universal history. Most scholars read Ibn Khaldun's sociological view of history as the foremost business cycle theory. I, however, would prefer to call it the, dialectics of extremities. When a dynasty beginning as a group of warriors reaches its political, economic, socio-cultural extreme it is bound to be dislodged by another gang of coarse warriors. Thus, it was Ibn Khaldun who first underscored the significance of dialectics as a tool of analysis of history. Almost four hundred years later, the German philosopher, George Frederick Hegel, without acknowledging the pioneering work of Ibn Khaldun, applied the tool of dialectics to explain the march of history. Hegel, had also borrowed the concept of 'philosophy of history' from Ibn Khaldun without giving any credit to the Arab philosopher of history. The argument that Hegel might not be aware of Ibn Khaldun or his seminal work, Prolegomenon, could not sound convincing because his life and works were introduced to Europeans in 1697 through Barthelemy d'Herbelot de Molainville's tome, Bibliothque Orientale. The intellectual dishonesty of Hegel is not surprising because even earlier the European scholars heavily borrowed ideas from the writings of Ibn Rushd (Averroes) and Ibn Sina (Avicenna) without giving credit to the original thinkers.

Hegel was not only dishonest but also a biased thinker for he spoke of ahistorical nations by which he meant the peoples whom the 'world spirit', the driving force of history, did not think worthy enough to reveal itself. In this category of 'ill-omened' peoples he included all the nations of the Orient. The teleological characteristic of his philosophy of history with a predetermined course of the Spirit passing through various stages such as the Oriental, the Greek, the Roman reached its ultimate peak, that's what he claimed, the Germanic people through Christianity. Thus, according to Hegel the German world with its Catholic Church was the personification of Reason and the ultimate destination of World Spirit. Interestingly, Hegel had also declared in 1806 that with the victory of Napoleon over the Prussian forces at Jena, the history had come to an end. Besides, the obvious contradictions of his philosophy of history, it must be pointed out that Hegel's writings on history are a pile of entrenched racist prejudices produced by a spiteful-sectarian mind. Dialectics as a tool of analysis to understand historical/social developments found its finest treatment at the hands of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels who transformed it into dialectical materialism, which is also known as historical materialism in Marxist terminology. Some Marxist scholars prefer to call it materialistic interpretation of history. It is obvious that material conditions, for instance geographical realities, do influence the course of social development. However, according to historical materialism the impact of geographical environment is not of a seminal nature because social changes appear at much faster pace than the changes and development of geographical phenomena. Citing from European history Marx pointed out that during the last three thousand years three different social system appeared viz. the primitive communal system, the slave system and the feudal system. However, during the same period geographical environment almost remained as it was in the past and whatever changes that took place in geographical realities of Europe were insignificant. Moreover, historical materialism holds that even growth in population, which is also a material reality of a society, does not determine the nature of a social system. Population growth may accelerate or retard the process of development of society, however, it cannot be the major determining factor in social development. The reason is that population growth does not provide an answer to the changes in social systems. In other words, an increase in population fails to explain that why a primitive communal system got transformed into the slave system and why the slave system was replaced by the feudal system. The growth in population does not result into the emergence of a higher kind of social system. For instance, Indian population is many times more than the population of Germany but that does not make Indian social system higher than that of Germany. The obvious question that arises is, if geography and population growth are not the determining forces of historical/social transformation then which is the determinant force? According to historical materialism the modes of production of material values, are the real forces that bring about change in social system. In order to live and improve living conditions people produce things of material values. The instruments of production that are put to use in producing things of material values require for their operation labour skills and all these factors may be jointly defined as the productive forces of society. Another facet of the process of production is the cooperative venture in which all men take part to exploit nature to create material values. Thus, production is not an activity that can be carried out by an individual in isolation. It is a task that can only be accomplished by cooperation of men and that is why it is known as social production. In order to produce material values men join hands with other
3

men in a relationship of mutual help which is not based on any kind of exploitation. The relations of production may be of hierarchical nature or may change from one kind of relation to another kind of relation of production. Nevertheless, despite hierarchy and ever changing characteristics, the relations of production remain fair and just. To quote Marx: "In production, men not only act on nature but also on one another. They produce only by cooperating in a certain way and mutually exchanging their activities. In order to produce, they enter into definite connections and relations with one another and only within these social connections and relations does their action on nature, does production, take place." Historical materialism suggests that an important feature of production is that it keeps changing. At different stages of development different modes of productions keep appearing. Consequently, with the change of mode of production social system, political institutions, spiritual life and the views of the people also change. Therefore, the nature of a social system is determined by its mode of production. This is a very significant point because according to this viewpoint the real history is not the record of the lives of kings and queens and their exploits, expeditions and intrigues. The real history is the story of the development of production, of the producers of the material values of the labourers who have always been the major force in producing material values. Furthermore, every change in the mode of production bring about change in men's relation of production and their economic relations. Though relations of production depend on development of productive forces, they do react upon the development of productive forces which may either accelerate or retard it. The significant point is that relations of production should be in conformity with the development of productive forces to ensure maximum growth of production. Otherwise, a mismatch between relations of production and the pace of growth of production will result in crisis of production and destruction of productive forces. In order to prove the point Marx cites the example of capitalist mode of production in which private ownership of the means of production is in conflict with the productive forces. It is, according to Marx, bound to result in the destruction of productive forces which can make a social revolution imperative to define new relations of production in accordance with the kind of productive forces. This will lead to the creation of a socialist system. Thus, according to historical materialism five types of relations of production are identified in history viz. primitive communal, slave, feudal, capitalist and socialist. One of the finest exponents of Marxist School of historiography in the twentieth century was Edward Hallett Carr who began not as a historian or a Marxist theorist but as a diplomat and a scholar of international relations committed to the realist approach. Subsequently, however, he became a critic of empiricism in the realm of historiography and thus ended up as a Marxist historian. Carr's magnum opus is the A History of the Soviet Russia in 14 volumes covering the period of the former socialist republic between 1917 and 1929. Carr's significant contribution to historiography, however, can be traced to his other book, What is History?, in which he discarded the efficacy of empiricism in historiography. His argument is: "The belief in a hard core of historical facts existing objectively and independently of the interpretation of the historian is a preposterous fallacy..." His contention that historians usually make use of the historical facts selectively seems to be a valid one. Expounding the point, he classifies 'facts' into two categories, 'facts of the past' and 'historical facts'. The former category comprises the historical data that are not considered worth to inquire into by the historians while the latter includes the information that is cared for the historical research. The process of opting for and rejecting the historical data is invariably
4

arbitrary. Carr points out that most historians choose to examine 'historical facts' to further their ideological agenda. Therefore, he recommends: "Study the historian before you begin to study the facts. Like a true Marxist, Carr believed in the deterministic view of history. He contended that all historical events were rooted in certain causes and for that reason events could not happen differently if the causes were similar. Carr was also critical of those scholars who would give excessive importance to coincidence and unforeseen causes in the unfolding of history. In his estimation such historian were either bereft of the historical craft or were interested only in narrating the history of the 'losers'. Reflecting on the all round progress the human civilisation made during the twentieth century, Carr advised the historians that they must alter their old values while writing history because their works should replicate the progress of their times. Paying tribute to Karl Marx, he pointed out that the German philosopher had developed a theoretical model for the comprehension of the past, present and future sticking to which a historian could perform the dual role of an analyzer of the past events and also motivate the people to change the present order to build a better and just future for the mankind. Carr asserted that historians must shun the proclivity of passing moral judgements on historical figures because, in his view, it was ahistorical to evaluate the temperaments and actions of the people of the past according to the moral values of the age of the historian. A dispassionate historian is likely to judge the historical figures in the light of the values of their times and social orders. Nevertheless, Carr conceded that if it was necessary for a historian to give expression to his moral opinions, he should restrict them to the institutions rather than historical figures. Likewise, Carr insisted that historians should refrain from calling historical events in terms of 'good' or 'evil'; in their place he advocated the usage of terms like 'progressive' and 'reactionary'. Quite a few historians in Europe and elsewhere refute the class analysis of the Marxists as a valid tool of historiography. The prominent among them are mostly the French historians belonging to the Annales School that made its appearance in the twentieth century. The school recommends what are known as the 'scientific methods' to be employed by historians and underscores the significance of social premises rather than political in the interpretation of the historical data. Through its official journal, Annales d'Histoire Economique et Sociale (Annals of Economic and Social History), the leading historians Lucien Febvre and Marc Bloch argued that all levels of society help understand the historical development of a people and a region. They seem to take into consideration, what they prefer to call, 'the collective nature of mentality' in shaping the course of history. The historians of the school assigns considerable credence to geography, psychology and culture of the people and the times they are dealing with as they suspect the historical facts that are usually handed over as facts accompli. While launching the Annals (1929), its founders, Febvre and Bloch, had declared that through it the historians committed to the standpoint of the school through their analyses would bring about a paradigm shift in the thought processes of the people of the world that in turn would help lessen the possibilities of economic and political adversities in times to come. The purpose of the journal was to "study the present so as to reach a profound understanding of the past." The Annales School had significantly influenced many historians of Europe and Latin America. Besides Febvre and Bloch, Fernand Braudel, Pierre Goubert, Robert Mandrrou, Ernest Labrousse and others have been associated with the school.

Among those who refuse to endorse the Marxist position on historiography is a group of historians who have dedicated themselves to the study of British imperialism, in particular, its impact on the colonised countries. It is known as Cambridge School of historiography, which emerged about 1960s and in a short while has registered quite an impact by way of reinterpretation of the history of modern India, in particular, the rise of nationalism. The historians of the group have been associated with the Cambridge University, hence the name of the school. The prominent names of the group are John Andrew Gallagher, Anil Seal, Gordon Johnson et al. With reference to the colonial history of India, the Cambridge School historians seem to believe that Indian nationalism was a corollary of British imperialism. The thrust of this viewpoint is the centralised administration introduced by the colonial masters that, in their opinion, was not known to the subcontinent before the Raj. Besides, the railways and other advanced modes of transport led to the increased interactions among the people of different geographical areas who were hitherto cramped to their respective regions, the introduction of a standardized kind of education, the impulsion of commercial activities and some other services of common benefit such as telegraph and modern hospitals helped create a vociferous national intelligentsia that was the driving force of Indian nationalism. This thesis finds its optimum expression in a collection of essays by the leading lights of the group entitled Locality, Province and Nation: Essays on Indian Politics, 1870-1940. It was not surprising that the Indian historians both Marxists and nationalists hotly contested the basic premise of the Cambridge scholars. The Marxists argue that by undermining the economic change in preference to the so-called employment opportunities made available by foreign masters as the motivating force for historical developments including nationalism, the Cambridge historians have in a way justified the colonial rule. Secondly, to say that the rise of Indian nationalism was a logical upshot of the rise of educated class smacks of elitism and ignores the role of the working classes in the freedom struggle. Similarly the nationalist historians contend that the Cambridge scholars are nothing short of apologists of the British imperialism. They portray British rule in India as a rule of benevolence and in doing so they have relied mainly on the documents produced by the foreign masters. Nonetheless, it is evident that the historiography of this school cannot be universally applied. For instance, how could one explain the emergence of nationalism in the countries that were never colonised?

II
Ancient Indians had no proclivity for writing history. This seems to be an oddity because in ancient India disciplines such as philosophy, politics, mathematics, medicine, astronomy, literature, in particular, poetry and drama had reached a reasonably high level of merit. Acknowledging the fact even R. C. Majumdar who portrays everything of ancient India in the most overvalued manner admits: "One of the greatest defects in Indian culture which defies rational explanation, is the aversion of Indians to writing history. They applied themselves to all conceivable branches of literature and excelled in many of them, but they never seriously took to the writing of history." Consequently, the scholastic works that we find today dealing with ancient India have been recreated by modern historians, both Indians and foreigners, on the sources like inscriptions (mostly religious disseminations) chiseled on rocks, archaeology and the chronicles written by the foreign travelers like Magasthenes, Faxian, Xuanzang et al.
6

Here, we may take a brief survey of the primary books that were produced during the medieval period. The Indians came to learn the art of historiography through the historians of Afghani-Turkish-Iranian origin who had visited the subcontinent at different stages of history and produced some valuable of historical accounts. No wonder the first history of India, the subcontinent and not a part of it, was written by Abu Reran al-Biruini known as Alberonius to the medieval Latin scholars. Born in the outskirts of the city of Kath that was at the time the capital of the Afrigid dynasty of Khwarezm (Chorasmia) in 973, al-Biruni was a multi-faceted genius who excelled in various areas of knowledge. Besides being a historian he was a polyglot having mastery over Khwarezmian (his mother-tongue, now extinct), Persian, Arabic and Sanskrit while being familiar with Greek, Hebrew, Syriac and Berber. His genius was also reflected in many fields of knowledge such as physics, mathematics, astronomy and natural sciences. He is also credited with originating the discipline that is known as Indology today because it was he who, for the first time introduced India, its religions, customs, traditions, cultures and languages to a much larger audiences abroad. His contributions to Earth Sciences is consummate because of which he is called the 'father of Geodesy'. When Mahmud of Ghazni annexed Rey (near Tehran) in 1017, al-Biruni happened to be in the city. His fame as a polymath and a polyglot was widespread because of which Mahmud offered him an important position in his court. It was during one of the incursions of Mahmud into India that al-Biruni accompanied the Ghaznavid army and thereafter kept visiting the subcontinent for about thirteen years to study the languages, philosophy, sciences, culture, customs, traditions, commerce and political system of India. The output of his scholastic pursuits resulted around 1030 in the form of the first history of India, Kitab Tarikh al-Hind (lit. The Book of History of India). The methodology, al-Biruni employed during his research was remarkably scientific and similar to what present-day academic historians might put in their research. His command over Sanskrit allowed him to scrutinize the ancient texts his perceptive observation of the people, their actions, rituals and customs and his innumerable interviews with the cross-sections of Indians enabled him to bring together a huge amount of data to base his book upon. Tarikh al-Hind is not merely a narrative about the political dynasties and their functioning, it is, in fact a compendium incorporating strands of Indian philosophy, mathematics, geography, culture, religion and the way of life of the people of the subcontinent. Al-Biruni expressed that he wrote the book to make available "the essential facts for any Muslim who wanted to converse with Hindus and to discuss with them questions of religion, science, or literature." He further explained: "My book is nothing but a simple historic record of facts. I shall place before the reader the theories of the Hindus exactly as they are, and I shall mention in connection with them similar theories of the Greeks in order to show the relationship existing between them." It was through this book that a major part of the outside world got to know about the Bhagvad Gita, the Upanishads, Puranas, the Vedas, Hindu mythology and the scientific writings of Nagarjuna and Aryabhata. Though Al-Biruni was quite impressed by the Indian philosophical and scientific traditions and also made a comparative study of Indian and Greek thoughts, he reproved the pomposity, smugness and blinkered propensity of most Indians that was antithetical to research and scholastic pursuits. Here is what he said about Indians in the context: "The Hindus believe that there is no country but theirs, no nation like theirs, no kings like theirs, no religion like theirs, no science like theirs. They are haughty, foolishly
7

vain, self-conceited, and stolid. They are by nature niggardly in communicating that which they know, and they take the greatest possible care to withhold it from men of another caste among their own people, still much more, of course, from any foreigner...Their haughtiness is such that, if you tell them of any science or scholar in Khorasan and Persia, they will think you to be both an ignoramus and a liar. If they traveled and mixed with other nations, they would soon change their mind, for their ancestors were not as narrow-minded as the present generation is." It was obvious that al-Biruni could not openly condemn his employer's frequent raids on Indian towns and ransacking of temples, in particular, in Mathura and Somnath but he recorded the said events with a discernible sense of lamentation. According to his English translator, Edward C. Sachau al-Biruni did say that Mahmud "utterly ruined the prosperity of the country." After a close scrutiny of the two faiths, Hinduism and Islam and their respective cultures, al-Biruni remarked that the two religions were poles apart. In his words: "They (Hindus) totally differ from us in religion, as we believe in nothing in which they believe, and vice versa. On the whole, there is very little disputing about theological topics among themselves; at the utmost, they fight with words, but they will never stake their soul or body or their property on religious controversy. On the contrary, all their fanaticism is directed against those who do not belong to them--against all foreigners. They call them mleccha, i.e. impure, and forbid having any connection with them, be it by intermarriage or any other kind of relationship, or by sitting, eating, and drinking with them, because they think they would be polluted thereby." Added to this were the repeated plunders and loot of Mahmud's in northwestern region of India. This was one of the reasons, as al-Biruni pointed out, for Hindus to have animosity towards Muslims. It persists even after the interval of about a thousand years and a few political parties in contemporary democratic, secular India primarily thrive on it. Among the notable Indian historians who left behind scholastic records of the Sultanate period and the Mughal dynasty, the names of Ziauddin Barni, Abul Fazl, Abdul Qadir Badauni and Muhammad Qasim Hindu Shah (Farishta) come to mind. Ziauddin Barni (1285-1357) belonged to an aristocratic family whose ancestors occupied important positions in the courts of various kings of the Delhi Sultanate. Though he never occupied an official position, he was a close friend of Muhammad bin Tughlaq. Ziauddin's fame rests on the two books that have survived the vagaries of time and reached us. Of the two, Tarikh-e-Firoz Shahi is exclusively an historical account of the Delhi Sultanate covering the time Ghiyasuddin Balban ascended the throne till the initial years of Firoz Shah Tughlaq's rule. The other book, Fatawa-e-Jahandari, a book that may be described as a mishmash of Chanakyas Arthashastra and Manusmriti. Barni was perhaps the first Muslim in India who had stratified the Indian Muslims into ashraf and ajlaf. He was vehemently opposed to the notion of social egalitarianism that was trumpeted, by a handful of ulema, as the finest hallmark of Islam. In Tarikh-e-Ftroz Shahi Barni blew his own horn that the rulers who paid heed to his counsel has been successful in whatever they did and those who turned their back on his guidance had failed miserably in every respect. His account of the period, though sketchy, is considered to be a reliable primary source, in particular, about Alauddin Khilji's conquests of Chittor, Ranthambor, Malwa and Deccan. The founder of Mughal dynasty, Zahiruddin Babur, himself was a poet and following the footsteps of his famed ancestor, Timur, wrote his autobiography in Turkish that was his
8

mother tongue. The memoirs originally named as Tuzuk-e-Baburi, also came to be known as Baburnama when they were translated into Persian by Abdur Rahim Khan-e-Khanan in the reign of Akbar the Great. Accordingly, we get to know the details about the initial phase of the Mughal dynasty through the life story of the man who had established it. Baburnama is an authentic record of the adventurous life of Babur. Though the memoirs do not tell us the complete story of Babur who died at a comparatively young of 47, a considerable portion of the book comprises the narrative of India, its land, people, resources, flora, fauna climate etc through the eyes of the man who was not only a brave warrior but also a sensitive poet because of which even in the midst of war and death-defying travels he could appreciate the beauties of nature and write about them. The sudden illness of Babur from which he never recovered was, as per the chronicle of his daughter, in response to his supplication to God to save his son Humayun's life from a grave illness in lieu of his own life. Babur's daughter, Gulbadan Begam (1523-1603) was also a poet and a very well educated person. Her fame in history is because of Humayun Nama that she wrote on the request of Akbar, her nephew. The significant of the book can be gauged from the fact that it is the only surviving book written in 16th century by a Mughal princess. Here is what she wrote about the end of Babur: During Humyn's illness his Majesty walked round him and turned his face (in intercession) to his Reverence, Murtaa 'Al Karmullh. He kept up that going-round from the Wednesday and made intercession from the Tuesday, in anxiety and deep dejection. The weather was extremely hot and his heart and liver burned. While going round he prayed, saying in effect: O God! if a life may be exchanged for a life, I who am Bbar, I give my life and my being for Humyn. "That very day he fell ill, and Humyn poured water on his head, and came out and gave audience. Because of his illness, they carried my royal father within, and he kept his bed for two or three months...The death took place on Monday, December 26th, 1530 (Jumda I. 5th, 937H.)." Having lost the kingdom in 1540 to Sher Shah Suri, Humayun fled to Iran passing through Lahore and Kabul. During her brother's 15-year banishment from India, Gulbadan Begum stayed in Kabul. Akbar had commissioned her to write whatever she could recollect about Humayun and his reign so that the reminiscences could be used by Abul Fazl in writing Akbarnama. Her recollections provide information about the hardships and problems her brother faced in reestablishing the Mughals dynasty along with a few glimpses of the kind of life women had to live in Mughal harem. Besides Akbarnama, there are a couple of other historical accounts written during the reign of the third Mughal emperor. Abdul Qadir Badauni was a scholar of Persian language, an historian and translator. Despite his orthodox religious views Akbar had appointed him to the religious office where he translated the Sanskrit epics Ramayana and Mahabharata into Persian. His fame as an historian is because of Muntakhab-ul-Tawarikh (1595) in three volumes. The first volume chronicles the reigns of Babur and Humayun while the third is a general history of the prominent Muslims who had made extraordinary contributions to Islamic thought, medicine, literature and poetry. It is the second volume that deals with the reign of Akbar, and because of the extremely orthodox Sunni views of its author, is exceptionally critical of Akbar's religious approach, his secular administration, his catholicity and, in particular, his policy of appointing Hindus to the high offices. It was because of such
9

critical views about the emperor and his administration, the second volume was not published in the lifetime of Akbar. With the ascension of Jahangir and the return of orthodox mullahs to the durbar the second volume of Badauni's history got published. Needless to add that it is an awfully biased account of Akbar and his governance. No wonder that the book is a favourite source material for the orthodox history scholars, leaders of Muslim communal parties and organisations and fanatic mullahs in the subcontinent and elsewhere whenever they intend to deride liberal views and secular policies. Another significant history of the Akbar's reign is Tabaqat-e-Akbari of Khwaja Nizamuddin Ahmad who was Mir Bakshi (Chief Accountant of the Armed Forces) of Akbar's court. It is a wide-ranging account of historical events from the raids of Ghazni to 1594 that was the 38th year of Akbar's reign. However, the principal history of Akbar's times is Akbarnama of Abul Fazl. Its three volumes cover the history of Akbar's ancestors beginning from Timur and ending at the 46th year of Akbar's supremacy. Abul Fazl, his poet-laureate brother Faizi and his scholar father Sheikh Mubarak Nagori were the resolute supporters of Akbar's religious reforms, his secular policies and all-inclusive administration. It was because of his liberal views, the orthodox elements of Akbar's period such as Abdul Qadir Badauni hated the influence of Nagori brothers in Akbar's court. Abul Fazl is also the author of an administrative account of Akbar's reign, Ain-e-Akbari, which is also spread over three volumes. The liberal policies of Akbar inspired quite a few men of letters to get engaged in chronicling their times. As a result of it we find many historical accounts emanating from the reign of Akbar not only in and around the seat of power but also in different parts of India. For instance, Tarikh-e-Haqqi is, in fact, an extension of Badauni's Muntakhab-ul-Tawarikh. Its author Abdul Haq Dehlavi was an orthodox Sunni Muslim which obviously made him a bitter critic of Akbar's religious reforms and his secular administration. A mention must also be made of Tarikh-e-Alfi, which was compiled on Akbar's orders by Maulana Ahmad, Badauni and others. Alf in Arabic means a millennium. A millennium of Islamic calendar got completed in Akbar's reign. An inexplicable buzz that was to be discerned everywhere in those times was that Islam would come to an end after a thousand years of its birth. This prompted Akbar to issue orders for compiling the history of the first millennium of the Islamic calendar. There are a few very authentic and valuable books that provide information about the state of affairs in the Deccan at the time of Akbar. A very popular book of history is Gulshane-Ibrahimi, which is widely known as the Tarikh-e-Farishta. The author Muhammad Qasim Hindu Shah of Astarabadi alias Farishta was of Irani origin who was first in service of the Nizam Shahi dynasty of Ahmadnagar and later served the Adil Shahi sultans of Bijapur. In the preface (muqaddama), the author briefly describes the history of India prior to the arrival of the Muslims. This section also includes the biographies of the great Hindu rajas of the author's times. The main part of the book provides an overview of the Muslim rulers of India from the time of Ghazni up to 1610 when it was completed. Farishta has made extensive use of whatever earlier histories he could find in the compilation of his work. A useful book that gives information about the post-Bahamani period of the history of the Deccan is Burhan-e-Maasir also belonging to the reign of Akbar. The author Spayed Ali bin Azizullah Tabatabai was of Iraqi origin who had first joined the court of Ibrahim Qutb Shah and later entered the service of the Nizam Shahi. He was commissioned by Burhan Nizam Shah II to write the history of the Nizam Shahis. Though the book is named after the
10

royal patron, it is also chronogram because the Persian letters of the title Burhan-e-Maasir add up to 1000 A. H. corresponding to 1592, which is incidentally the year of the foundation of the city of Hyderabad. Burhan-e-Maasir comprises three sections; the first section gives the information about the sultanate of Gulbarga, the second one is about the sultanate of Bidar and the third, which is also the bulkiest, records the history of the sultans of Nizam Shahi of Ahmadnagar up to the Peace Treaty of March 14, 1596 between Shah Murad, the representative of the Mughals and Chand Bibi. In the tradition of his ancestors, Timur and Babur, Jahangir wrote the major part of his memoirs Tuzuk-e-Jahangiri, which is also known as Jahangirnama. Therefore, it serves the most authentic source of the reign of the fourth Mughal emperor. Jahangir wrote the history of the first twelve years of his rule himself and thereafter assigned the task to Muhammad Sharif Motamad Khan who was Mir Bakshi (Chief Accountant of the Armed Forces). Thus, the narrative after the twelve regnal yeras of Jahangir were chronicled by Motamad Khan. Amusingly, Motamad Khan, in addition to writing the text of Jahangirnama, was also writing his own memoirs. This book that got published in the reign of Shah Jahan is known as Iqbalnama, that gives a broader idea of the history of the Mughals from Timur to the accession of Shah Jahan to the throne. Iqbalnama is a very helpful source material chiefly because of the original and authentic material it provides about the last five years of Jahangir's rule that were troubled with court intrigues and the de facto rule of Noor Jehan. It is assumed that Shah Jahan had commissioned Khwaja Kamgar Ghariat Khan to write the history of the rule of Jahangir. The book, Maasir-e-Jahangiri was completed in the third regnal year of Shah Jahan, throws light on the defiant ways and vices of prince Salim that had put him into trouble on quite a few occasions with emperor Akbar. This information is missing from Tuzuk-e-Jahangiri as well as Iqbalnama. Shah Jahan's reign is considered to be the 'golden age' of the Mughal empire because of comparative calm and peaceful conditions that prevailed throughout the empire. It was also the time when, because of the patronage of the emperor fine arts and architecture. A composite language that originated in the thirteenth century as a lingua franca between the people of Turkish, Iranian and Arab origin and the Indians, got the much needed push in the reign of Shah Jahan especially in the Deccan where some of the earliest and the first-rate literary works, both in poetry and prose, were produced in its initial mode, the Dakhni. The period of prosperity and peace was also very conducive to the research and academic activities. Consequently, we find a number of historical accounts, both official and nonofficial, dealing with the reign of Shah Jahan. Here, a mention must be made of Padshahnama, the three books of which were produced by three different historians at different phases of Shah Jahan's rule on emperor's orders. A comprehensive narrative of the first regnal decade of Shah Jahan was prepared by Muhammad Amin Qazvini. It is, however, too flattering a record of the emperor's first ten years as the historiographer seems to be in awe of his patron. The second book of Padshahnama that runs into two volumes, was written by Abdul Hamid Lahori who was a veteran and also a very competent historian. The book does not carry forward the narrative from the point it is left in the first one but Lahori revisits the initial career of Shah Jahan as a prince and then, with reasonable objectivity, presents the record of the first twenty years of the emperor i.e. up to 1648. The third Padshahnama was produced by Muhammad Waris, an able pupil of Lahori. In his version, Waris too reworks from the beginning of Shah Jahan's life11

story and concludes it with his removal and subsequent confinement by Aurangzeb in 1658. Waris's account is very helpful in getting an insight of the last regnal decade of Shah Jahan, the rivalry between his sons for the emperor's crown, the emperor's partisan attitude towards Dara Shikoh and the ruthless military prowess of Aurangzeb. Waris's version of Padshahnama is also valuable because of the first-hand accounts of the planning and construction of the exquisite buildings of Shah Jahan's reign including the world renowned Taj Mahal. Besides these official accounts there are a few histories of Shah Jahan's period that were produced independently. A high-ranking official in Shah Jahan's administration, Inayat Khan also known as Muhammad Tahir Aashna, in his book Mullakkhas, popularly known as Shahjahan-nama, brought together the significant events of the first thirty years of the emperor's reign. Most of the details of the book seem to be reproduced from the official Padshahnama. Another Shahjahan-nama was produced by Muhammad Sadiq Khan who too was an official in emperor's administration. It is a far more dispassionate account of the period under consideration and for this reason is far more accurate than the official biographies of the emperor. Khan's position is also important in history because after defeat and execution of Dara Shikoh, he acted as a mediator between the emperor and the triumphant Aurangzeb. Therefore, Khan's description of the struggle among the princes for the crown of Mughal empire is original and dependable. Aurangzeb ruled India for almost half a century and this long reign was marked by dissension, disruptions, insurgencies and outright mutinies against the authority of the emperor in different part of the countries. This state of affairs was the off-shoot Aurangzeb's appalling policies especially in respect with religious issues. Having achieved power by treachery combined with ruthless force and incarcerating his own father who was least inclined to pass on the control of the empire to him, Aurangzeb expediently adopted the image of an orthodox and pious religious man to placate the disquiet that was prevalent among the trusted military officers who had not expected such a violent manner of transfer of power. Additionally, he himself had a very narrow and fanatic view of Islam that was awkwardly unsuitable in a largely non-Muslim country like India. The puritanical and the regressive version of Islam he believed in, obliged him to reintroduce the collection of poll-tax (jizya) from his non-Muslim subjects, a throwback of the primitive tribal Islamic state that was largely populated by the desert people. No wonder, he had to spend the major part of his reign quelling one rebellion after another. He was also suspicious of the people who showed the slightest interest in intellectual activities. He could tolerate men of letters only if they were engaged in Islamic theology that too if it endorsed his orthodox version of the faith. Initially, in the tradition of his ancestors he too appointed Mirza Muhammad Kazim as the official historiographer of his reign. The book, Alamgir-nama, that Kazim produced wraps up only the first decade of Aurangzeb's rule. It is believed that the text of the book was severely altered by the emperor himself in order to give a gratifying image of himself and his administration. He, however, could not review the nonofficial chronicles the other historians might be writing about his reign. Consequently, in twenty-first regnal year by an order he completely prohibited the exercise of writing of contemporary history across the empire. In view of the prohibition most historians who could have produced authentic records of the period became inactive. One person, Muhammad Hashim Khan, however, kept recording all the major events of Aurangzeb's reign clandestinely. The book thus produced entitled, Muntakhub-ul-Lubab gives a comprehensive picture of the rule of Aurangzeb.
12

Obviously the book was made public after the death of the last great Mughal emperor and the author's scholarship earned him an official position and the title of Khafi Khan conferred by the then emperor Muhammad Shah. The word Khafi means secret that indicates the way Hashim Khan wrote his book. Khafi Khan's book is not just about the reign of Aurangzeb but it also portrays an unbiased account of the history of the Mughals from the reign of the founder of the dynasty to the fourteenth regnal year of Muhammad Shah. Quite a few historical accounts dealing with Aurangzeb's reign were produced after the death of the emperor in 1707. The notable among them are Maasir-e-Alamgiri by Muhammad Saqi Mustaid Khan, Nuskha-e-Dilkusha by Bhim Sen and Futuhat-e- Alamgiri by Isar Das Mehta. Mustaid Khan was a high official in the administration of Aurangzeb and according to his assertion, had undertaken the project of recording history in secret on the instruction of the emperor himself. Maasir-e-Alamgiri encompasses the details of fifty-one years of Aurangzeb's rule that are heavily based on official records. Bhim Sen was an officer in the military of Aurangzeb and in that capacity had spent many years with the emperor in the Deccan. Nuskha-e-Dilkusha is, therefore, provides a clear picture of Aurangzeb's military expeditions in the Deccan beginning from his invasion of Hyderabad in 1656. Isar Das Mehta too was an officer during the reign of Aurangzeb having the responsibility of looking after the administration of the district of Jodhpur. His book exclusively deals with the events that took place in Rajputana and Malwa from 1657 to 1698. The history of the later Mughals i.e. the emperors who ascended the throne of Delhi after Aurangzeb is, in fact, a record of deterioration and decadence, of betrayal and duplicity, of intrigue and disloyalty, of internal dissension and open revolt. From 1526, the year Babur conquered Delhi to 1707, the year Aurangzeb died, six emperors ruled India for almost two hundred years. In the post-Aurangzeb era, however, India witnessed twelve emperors during a span of 150 years. A few of the so-called emperors ruled for a few months while a couple of them were assassinated by their treacherous ministers, commanders or other claimants to the throne. The central administration had almost collapsed during the period. Indigenous centres of power such as the Marathas in the Deccan, central India and even in the north and the Sikhs in Punjab had consolidated their power. The foreigners, in particular, the British became politically powerful first in Bengal and thereafter gradually spread their tentacles in rest of India. In the blood-spattered aftermath of the uprising of 1757, the East India Company deposed the last Mughal emperor, Bahadur Shah Zafar and a year later India became a colony of the British empire. During this era of disorder and anarchy there was a plethora of historical writings in all parts of the country. Quite a few of these books are, however, lack in authenticity and detachment, which make them questionable in the eyes of the scholars. A mention must be made of a couple of primary historical writings from the period that are reliable, informative and written with objectivity. They include Tarikh-e-Iradat Khan, which chronicles the events from the last phase of Aurangzeb to the six-year rule of Farrukhsiyar, the third Mughal emperor after Aurangzeb. A highly critical assessment of Aurangzeb's regressive religious policy can be found in Ibratnama of Muhammad Kasim. Another book, Tarikh-e-Chughtai, authored by Muhammad Hadi is a general history of the Mughal period ending at 1724, which was the 6th regnal year of Muhammad Shah. This is a brief survey of the most sign cant primary books of history of India from AlBiruni's Kitab-e-Tarikh-e-Hind to the books produced during the post-Aurangzeb period. Almost all the reputed historians, Indians as well as foreigners, have made extensive use of
13

these books to reconstruct their historical accounts. Modern India saw the production of many historical books by the foreigners. Many of these books present an extremely biased account of ancient and medieval periods of Indian history; these periods, on purpose, were respectively christened as the Hindu period and the Muslim period. It was part of the overall strategy of the British to divide Indians on religious lines and perpetuate their rule. Interestingly, the British historians named the phase of their imperialism as Modern India. There are many valuable historical accounts produced by the Indian historians of ancient, medieval and modern India from different perceptions. Among the scholars who adhere to the concept of unity of Indian nation with a composite culture the name of Tara Chand and his outstanding book, Influence of Islam on Indian Culture, comes to the mind. Then there are those who subscribe to two nation theory and look at Indian history from a communal point of view. Many of such writers are not exactly historians but propagandists of their divisive ideology and therefore, do not deserve a mention at all. Yet, because the work of one of them is evaluated by S. H. Magrabi, he must be identified. He is R. C. Majumdar who seriously believes that the Hindus and the Muslims are two conflicting religious entities and for that reason Muslims cannot possibly be a part of Indian nation. According to Irfan Habib, To him (Majumdar) the entire period c. 1200 onwards was one of foreign rule; Muslims were alien to Indian (Hindu) culture; the Hindus oppressed and humiliated, wished nothing better than to slaughter the Mlechas (Muslims); the British regime was a successor more civilised than Muslim rule; yet real opposition to the British came from the Hindus, not Muslims, even in 1857; and finally the national movements course was throughout distorted by concessions made to Muslims by Gandhiji Mjumdar's counterpart in Pakistan is I. H. Qureshi for whom the reign of the Muslim emperors was nothing short of a pinnacle of glory and prosperity for India and its people. The most reputed and equally authentic histories have been, however, produced by those who were ideologically connected to what is known as the Marxist school of historiography. The first important work in this category is that of R. P. Dutt's India Today that was first published in 1940. Dutt exposed the multilateral abuse of India under the British. A very respected name among the Marxist historians is that of D. D. Kosambi whose Introduction to the Study of Indian History and quite a few other books dealing with ancient Indian history are internationally acclaimed for their exactitude and consistency. Romila Thapar is another significant historian who has mainly dealt with the history of ancient India. Her major works include Asoka and the Decline of the Mauryas, Ancient Indian History: Some Interpretations and Early India: From the Origins to AD 1300. Through her scholarly works we come to know about the origin of Hinduism and its constant interactions between different and at times differing social forces in ancient India. Irfan Habib is also a prominent historian belonging to this group. His main research work, Agrarian System of Mughal India, (1963), is considered to be the most authentic book on the subject. His other works such as Essays in Indian History: Towards a Marxist Perception, An Atlas of the Mughal Empire and Medieval India: The Study of Civilisation are equally well received.

III
S. H. Magrabi, the author of the papers included in this collection was a dedicated student of history and an exceptionally brilliant teacher of the discipline. He taught history in colleges of Aurangabad and Hyderabad before migrating to the USA to pursue his doctoral
14

research from the University of Illinois, Chicago. As a research scholar he got the opportunity to interact with and was guided by some of the well-known scholars of the USA. The notable among them have been Prof. Edward C. Thaden, Prof. David Jordan, Prof. Mellon and Prof. Hockings. He was working on the topic of imperialism. Sadly the work could not be completed because a few years after his arrival in the USA, he was afflicted by various ailments, the most dreadful being renal failure. Though in a major operation a healthy kidney was transplanted but he could not live long. This bunch of research papers was preserved by his wife, Syeda Fahim Magrabi, with the intention of getting it published. I was assigned the task of editing the the papers and making arrangement for their publication in a book form. Having read and edited them, I feel that it was a fruitful exercise because some of the papers have been produced after painstaking research and a few of them are insightful too. All the papers included here are not research articles; nor they all belong exactly to the discipline of history. A few of them are pieces on crucial topics primarily written for the newspapers and magazines. They justify their inclusion here on account of being part of the intellectual legacy of the author. Any endeavour to discern an ideological undercurrent in the book may not entirely be rewarding. Though Magrabi seems to have a leftist tilt, as some articles that are part of the book vouch for, he appears to have shifted his position while dealing with some other themes. Nevertheless, all the articles make interesting reading. In the research article entitled 'Some Footnotes on the Art of History Writing in India', Magrabi's hypothesis is that the art of historiography failed to develop in India because the ideas and method, the cardinal elements of an approach, are missing and despite making efforts Indian historian have failed to acquire craftsmanship. Then he goes on to explain what craftsmanship really is and how the European historians have acquired it. He asserts that an historian can master craftsmanship if he does experimentation, uses new techniques and is firmly grounded on a philosophical foundation. He attempts to accentuate the point by making a comparison between the European historians of nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Referring to James Mill's History of British India, Magrabi seems to have neglected the real motive of the publication of such an uncongenial book. Mill's praise of Muslims was not exactly because the chronicles were available or the Muslims' mastery over historiography; it was more a part of the British's time-tested strategy of 'divide and rule'. Most European historians of India, like Mill, do not treat Indians as Indians but as groups adhering to different religions, in particular, Hinduism and Islam, which, according to them, are perpetually in a state of conflict. How could Magrabi condone Mill's calculated mischief of periodising Indian history on religious ground as Hindu period and Muslim period. Magrabi is justified to criticise R. C. Majumdar because of his extremely biased views about the entire medieval period. Majumdar, at best, is an accomplished history scholar of the Hindu Right. Nevertheless, Magrabi's critical comments about Indian Marxist historians and their historiography are contentious. His statement that economic history of India has been ignored is certainly true but he should not have ignored the fact that a few significant historical accounts dealing with Indian economy were produced only by the Indian Marxists. The article, 'A Critical Note on Macaulay's History of England' is, in fact, a critical evaluation of Thomas Babington Macaulay's History of England. Magrabi fittingly extols the huge amount of information supplied by the Englishman concurrently putting on record that Macaulay 'was the sole historian of 19th century who, through his writings, raised the standard of history writing by adopting the narrative style, which he interlaced with artistic
15

and literary values'. The point that since Macaulay was a Whig, the main purpose of writing History of England was to underscore the significance of the Glorious Revolution got clearly conveyed in the article. Magrabi also points out the deficiencies of Macaulay as a historian. Macaulay was basically an orator and for that reason he would, like any other orator, keep repeating his views. Nevertheless, Macaulay's significance, as Magrabi states, is because of his chronicling the constitutional history of England. In this particular field he was the pioneer. The next five articles have a loose thematic continuity. The article, 'Manchester in Retrospect' is an in-depth review of Friedrich Engels' work, The Condition of the Working Class in England. That was incidentally his first book. In the aftermath of Industrial Revolution the English society underwent a sea change. From a rural agrarian society England became a highly complex urban social order. Engels perceptively analysis the transformation of English economy from a feudal to the capitalist one. The emergence of the middle classes was also a phenomenon that accompanied the rise of capitalist economy. The middle classes became the conduit of the capitalists as they had developed political and economic interests in the new economic order that simultaneously fortified parliamentary democracy. Engels points out that one of the consequences of industrialisation was the expansion of four towns of England into major centres of big industries viz. London, Manchester, Birmingham and Leeds. Since Manchester was the focal point of British industrial economy, Engels studied the living conditions of the classes of the city very closely. Magrabi says: 'Engels lived in Manchester for twenty months and keenly observed what an industrialized economy did to a city.' In the words of Engels: It is only the industrial age that has made it possible for the owners of these shacks, fit only for the accommodation of cattle, to let them at high rents for human habitations. It is only the modern industry which permits these owners to take advantage of poverty of the workers, to undermine the health of thousands to enrich themselves. Only industry made it possible for workers who have barely emerged from the state of serfdom to be again treated as chattles and not as human beings." It has been similar story of most European countries in the formative phase of capitalism. The writings of Marx and Engels, beside stirring up the proletariat from their stupor also alerted the bourgeoisie and their political agents to address the daunting problems of the industrial workers. Almost all labour laws and the trend of rising wages were, in fact, the logical corollary of Marxist clarion call, a fact rarely acknowledged even by the workers of today. If we closely observe the condition of the major industrialised centres of India, the living conditions of an overwhelming majority of the working classes appear worse than what they were in nineteenth century England. Where is the so-called 'human face' of free market economy? In the piece, 'Utopian and Scientific Socialism' Magrabi discusses basic ideas of the thinkers whose contribution to the idea of socialism prior to Karl Marx and Engels, is significant. His characterisations of Saint Simon, Robert Owen and Charles Fourier are, no doubt, interesting and bring into view the point that the ideas of these thinkers have influenced Marx to some extent. Magrabi, however, fails to Marx's objections to the views of his predecessors. It is also not properly discussed why Marx called these thinkers 'utopian socialists'. The next write-up, 'Legacy of Marxism' deals with the various problems which confront the Third World, in particular, India. Though India opted for 'mixed economy' and 'democratic socialism', Magrabi believes that the Marxist model may be a better alternative to
16

further the interests of India. In 'Fetishism or Alienation' the author underlines the Marxist canon that private property, in reality, is an offshoot of alienated labour. In his view fetishism 'contains the element of dehumanization in all forms of alienation.' Magrabi informs that Marx has not used the term 'alienation'. However, fetishism conveys similar meaning that frequently appears in the writings of Marx. In 'Theory of Imperialism and Bolshevik Revolution', the author contends that Marx, in addition to the proletariat revolution, also thought of a peasant uprising against the imperialist powers because he had closely scrutinized the devastating effects of British imperialism on the industry and economy of the colonies. Magrabi concludes by saying that it was Lenin who successfully combined the two models to bring about Bolshevik Revolution in Russia. 'Imperialism and Free Trade: Its Impact on British Foreign Policy on India and the Middle East in the Mid-Nineteenth Century' is a noteworthy research paper. In its preparation, it appears, Magrabi referred to many reference books and other authentic sources. The impact of British imperialism on all colonies was disastrous from cultural and economic points of view. It was bound to be so because the imperialist forces representing 'the nation of the shopkeepers' essentially had one-point agenda i.e. loot and plunder the economic resources of the colonies. The British historians and social scientists did make attempts to camouflage the core agenda by proliferating dubious concepts such as 'white man's burden' and 'British civilising mission' but such endeavours could hoodwink none except the imperialists. No wonder the poorest nations in the contemporary world are those which were the colonies of the European powers till the end of World War II. Magrabi, by citing credible data, reiterates here that the British had completely destroyed the local industry, commerce, agriculture and other financial institutions to establish and promote their industrial products in the captive markets of India and the Middle East. British imperialism, therefore, protected the commercial interests of the British capitalists and speculative bourgeoisie by force in all the colonies. Moreover, imperialism had also helped the Anglican Church to get engaged in proselytization and all missionary activities were financed the government of India. In pursuance of the missionary work the priests and chaplains and their sympathisers in the government smashed up local culture, traditions and rituals by deriding them as superstitions. One must admit that British imperialism did make some positive contributions such as laying down railway lines, industrialisation, introduction of modern medical institutions like colleges and hospitals, establishing educational institutions for imparting modern liberal and scientific learning and establishing local governing councils that helped germinate democratic administration especially in India. Nevertheless, even in the introduction of modern institutions and facilities, the colonial masters were actually pursuing their cardinal policy of commercial exploitation of the colonies. Magrabi has firmly established the validity of this argument the paper. 'Shibli as a Historian' is also a well-researched paper in the preparation of which the author has referred to a large number of original and secondary sources both in English and Urdu. Shibli Nu'mani was one of the most gifted colleagues of Syed Ahmad Khan. Though he was committed to the objectives of the Aligarh Movement, he had some differences with its protagonist, in particular, on political and religious issues. Magrabi's attempt to portray Shibli as 'the first historian who employed the modern techniques for writing the Islamic history in Urdu' is commendable but not entirely successful.
17

The basic flaw, as I understand, in Shibli's approach to history is his conviction that extraordinary individuals can make and mould history. His series about the 'Heroes of Islam' corroborates the point. Shibli failed to take into account social, historical and most importantly economic forces that were responsible for the emergence of Islam in the Arab peninsula and its subsequent expansion. He could not even contemplate such a thought because of his essentially religious worldview. It explains his differences with Syed Ahmad Khan on religious issue. Though Syed Ahmad Khan's political ideas were not exactly progressive enough to favour democracy in India and his educational movement also had an elitist tilt, his commentary of Qur'an (albeit incomplete) was thoroughly rationalistic and enlightening. I believe that Syed Ahmad Khan's Tafseer-ul Qur'an (of the first seventeen parts) is the most valuable commentary of the Qur'an ever produced by a scholar of SouthAsian origin. For Shibli such a rationalistic and scientific interpretation of Islam and its tenets was unpalatable. This is the truth about the his so-called differences in religious matters with Syed Ahmad Khan. Shibli's political views were certainly more progressive than Khan. He opposed Muslim separatism and advised his countrymen to rally behind a common political front to oppose the British. Unlike Khan, he wanted the Muslims to support the Indian National Congress. Nonetheless, Shibli despite being a nationalist, could not shun the fantasy of pan-Islamism. Evaluating Al-Farooq, a biography of Shibli's much loved hero, Omar, Magrabi seems to have approved the author's appraisal of the second caliph unreservedly. This is problematic because a few of Omar's actions have always been considered contentious in the history of Islam. Take, for instance, the Quirts incident as described in Al-Farooq and cited by Magrabi as the evidence of Shibli's objectivity! According to Shibli four days before his death, Muhammad asked the people to get ink and paper so that he could write his Will and Testament. When a few companions of the Prophet were about to comply his order, it was Omar who stopped them saying "Muhammad is mentally sick due to hyper-pyrexia; he is talking irrelevant things. We do not need any Will and testimony as we have Qur'an". And thus, the Prophet was denied the last wish that he had expressed a couple of days prior to his demise. In this context, the Shia scholars have a strong case blaming Omar for denying the Prophet of Islam to express his genuine desire to nominate Ali as his successor. Shibli has approved Omar's action on the ground that the Prophet 'lived for three more days after this incident...If he wanted to make a Will, he could have done it.' It is nothing short of sidetracking the issue and defending an action of Omar that is absolutely indefensible. Magrabi has also stated that Shibli as a historian mostly falls back on darayat (reasoning). In the incident noted above, however, Shibli appears to be a staunch Sunni scholar who, by design, refuses to take into consideration the circumstances in which the Prophet died. A few occurrences prior to the demise of the Prophet and after it should have been reflected upon by any dispassionate historian while dealing with the Qirtas incident. Shibli expediently ignored the 'farewell sermon' of the Prophet. On his way back to Mecca after performing the Farewell Pilgrimage (the last Hajj), the Prophet stopped at the pond (Ghadir) of Khumm and addressed the Muslim masses. In that sermon, the Prophet inter alia announced: "For whomever I am Mawla of, then Ali is his Mawla." The event has been reported in all the authentic books of Sunnis and Shias. The word Mawla means master. Thus, in plain and clear terms the Prophet nominated Ali as his successor. The Sunni scholars including Shibli, however, maintain that the Prophet was just praising Ali.
18

Secondly, how could Shibli approve of Omar's impudent defiance of Prophet's command? Was Omar a psychiatrist as well to declare in no uncertain terms that 'Muhammad was mentally sick'? Moreover, what 'irrelevant things the Prophet was talking'? And if he really did, then why no other reputed biographer of the Prophet from Ibn Hisham (Ibn Ishaq) to Maxim Rodinson did not report them? These are, of course, scratchy posers, which most Muslims prefer to avoid. However, a historian with objectivity as his proclivity, as Shibli was in Magrabi's estimation, should have addressed them. Had Shibli applied reasoning he would have also considered another unfortunate incident that took place after the demise of the Prophet. It was Omar again whose belligerent canvassing made Abu Bakr the first caliph. Sunni ulema, including Shibli, assert that the first caliph and the subsequent three (Khulfa-e-Rashidun) were democratically elected by the ummah. One fails to understand what exactly do they mean by democracy? Most Sunni ulema, with the intention of contravening Ali's claim to caliphate, holler about democratic principle. Shibli is far from objectivity in dealing with this issue. The three groups that had laid claims to the caliphate immediately after the death of the Prophet, included Banu Hashim led by Ali, Muhajirun or the Qureish of Mecca led by Abu Bakr and Omar and the Ansars whose chief was Sa'ad bin Abada. If the caliph was to be elected on democratic principle the bin-Abada should have been the first caliph as Ansars constituted the majority of the Muslims of Medina and they had also expressed the desire to elect bin-Abada. They were, however, restrained to exercise their democratic right on the entreaty that the caliph had to be from the tribe of the Qureish. Shibli overlooks even this action of Omar in complete disregard of egalitarianism of Islam (that was forcefully underlined by the Prophet in the sermon delivered at the conclusion of his last Hajj). Omar was, no doubt, a great soldier of Islam. He was a simple man whose integrity as the caliph is legendary. However, his attitude towards the members of the house of the Prophet, in particular, Ali was far from congenial. True, he was entitled to have his opinion about anyone around him. Nevertheless, Shibli refuses to treat him as a human being who might err. Al-Farooq is more a glorified account of 'his hero' than an objective portrayal of the personality and deeds of the second caliph. 'Sufism and Spread of Islam in Deccan' is a journalistic write-up meant for the readers who seek out information on such topics. The only point worth mentioning in the piece, is Magrabi's valid refutation of the calumny that 'Islam was spread with the force of sword'. Similarly, the piece, 'Terrorism--a Global Phenomenon' was also written for a magazine. In it, Magrabi brings into focus two interesting causes that help terrorism grow. The first one, according to him, ibis the power-politics of the most commanding nations of the world characterised by the rivalry among them for complete domination of the world. In the current multi-polar world we may say that certain erroneous policies of the USA help terrorism grow. The second cause that Magrabi has cited is the pulls and pressures of modern democratic world that has completely decimated cultural and human values. Such degeneration of society that has reduced most human beings as chattles can only generate terrorism. One may have reservations to accept such arguments of the author but they should be read because they are different. The last two articles are, in fact, review articles of three valuable books. The first one is an in-depth analysis of the renowned book of Edward Gibbon, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, which has a status of a classic. The book runs into six volumes which deal with the history of the Roman Empire highlighting three phases viz. the age of paganism, the
19

age of religion and the age of reason. Gibbon asserted that the Roman Empire gave strength and unity not only to Europe but to Asia and Africa as well. Such assertions are obviously debatable to say the least. The most significant point that Gibbon makes about the Roman administration is its secular character. The religious freedom people that was available to the heterogeneous groups of people in the vast empire spread over three continents was something astonishing and laudable. In the context Magrabi quotes Gibbon: "...the various modes of worship, which prevailed in the Roman World were all considered by the people as equally true; by the philosopher as equally false; and by the magistrate as equally useful." The healthy secular values that were the hallmark of paganism in ancient Rome could not survive when Constantine acceded the throne and embraced Christianity. With the institutionalization of Christian Church the secular values were brusquely buried and, to quote Magrabi: "Roman Empire, which was a beautiful flower-vase that consisted of different varieties and different shades of flowers, lost its charm once and for all and adoration to one's faith separated it from others." The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire is fittingly considered a classic the world over and for writing such a magnum opus Gibbon's name is permanently etched among the most profound historians of the world. Nevertheless, he had to face the brickbats too for his for applauding the secular character of paganism and its obliteration with the institutionalization of Christian Church. In the article, Magrabi brings into focus this point too. What Gibbon says about Christianity is true about other organized religions, in particular, Judaism and Islam as well. Religion in this context plays the role of a grotesque despot which prohibits almost all the natural liberties of the people. The two books Magrabi reviews in the last piece are: i) Louis Hartz's The Founding of New Societies, and, ii) Oscar Handlin's The Uprooted. As the titles of the books slightly suggest, they are about the trials and tribulations of the immigrated people face in finding a foothold in the totally strange and, at times, hostile surroundings. Magrabi has competently underscored the gist of both the books in his review. Hartz's book primarily deals with first wave of immigrants to the New World, their ordeals and nightmares and their ultimate success in establishing social, political and economic institutions. Hardlin's book, on the other hand encompasses the various problems the secondary immigrants who went to the United States in the nineteenth century. The overall picture of the conditions of the immigrants that emerges in the pages of the two books is not exactly enviable. Magrabi wraps up the article quoting Kraus that "they (immigrants) sought comfort of body, mind and heart in city ghettoes or rural enclaves." __________________________________________________________________________ * It is the Introduction to H. S. Magrabi's collection of essaya on history, Reading History: A Bunch of Papers, edited by Zaheer Ali. ***Zaheer Ali is a former professor of Political Science. Currently, he is a human rights activist, a political commentator and a freelance journalist. He is heads the Centre for Democracy and Secularism.

20

21