EARLY I N D I A

and commentators, and were therefore biased in favour of those in authority,

generally adhering to brahmanical theories of society irrespective of whether
or not they had widespread historical applicability. For example, caste
as described in texts such as the Dharma-shastras referred to varna distinctions, a hierarchy of ritual status creating a closed stratification of society,
apparently imposed from an early period and thereafter preserved almost
intact for many centuries. The lower castes were seen from the perspective
of the upper-caste brahman authors of the texts. Yet the actual working of
caste in Indian society permitted of variation, in accordance with local
conditions, which the authors of the Dharma-shastras were reluctant to
admit.
It is curious that there were only a few attempts to integrate the texts
studied by Indologists with the data collected by ethnographers. Both constituted substantial but diverse information on Indian society. Presumably
the bifurcation was influenced by the distinction between 'civilized' and
'primitive' peoples, the latter being said to have no literature. Those who
studied oral traditions were regarded as scholars but of another category.
Such traditions were seen as limited to bards, to lower castes and the tribal
and forest peoples, and as such not reliable when compared to the texts of
the higher castes and the elite. Had the two been seen as aspects of the same
society, the functioning of caste would have been viewed as rather different
from the theories of the Dharma-shastras.
The use of evidence from a variety of different sources that were later to
become dominant was a challenge to certain aspects of textual evidence, but
a corroboration of others, thus providing a more accurate and less one-sided
picture of the past. Evidence from contemporary inscriptions, for example,
became increasingly important. A small interest developed in genealogies
and local chronicles. James Tod gathered information from bards and local
chronicles for a history of various Rajput clans, but this did not lead to
greater interest in collecting bardic evidence or assessing the role of bards
as authors of local history. Tod tended to filter the data through his own
preconceptions of medieval European society, and was among those who
drew parallels with European feudalism, albeit of a superficial kind. He
popularized the notion that the Rajputs were the traditional aristocracy and
resisted Muslim rule, disregarding their political alliances and marriage
relations with Muslim rulers. L. P. Tessitori made collections of genealogies
and attempted to analyse them, but these never found their way into conventional histories. He too consulted local bards in Rajasthan and collected
their records.
Those interested in studying the Indian past and present through its
z

10