prasad1
Active member
I grew up in North India and my exposure to south was only through my mother and our occasional trips to south India.
In my days 50 odd years ago there was very little history of South India in the History books. South Indian Dynasties, or freedom fighters were totally ignored. Till I came to USA and started meeting people from different regions of India, and then traveling through various parts of India I have come to appreciate the culture of modern day India.
Think history, think of the Mauryas, the Guptas, the Sultanate and the Mughals. Maybe, somewhere down the line sneak in a chapter on the Cholas, and a paragraph or two on the likes of the Pandeyas, the Cheras, the Vakatakas and the rest. Some though have gone beyond this lopsided approach to our history and focussed on the achievements of the Cholas, the empire that lasted more than a millennium. Many years ago, the venerable Nilakant Sastri came up with a landmark study of the Cholas. Recently, S. Chandnibi, an academic at Aligarh Muslim University, concentrated on epigraphical data from the dynasty in her book, “Epigraphical Reading in the Chola History” to reveal to us some of the evidence of the vastness of the empire.
As youngsters we learn about Mauryan Emperor Ashoka’s expedition to Sri Lanka as also the Battle of Kalinga. Yet we are told little about how Raja Raja Chola I’s empire included Sri Lanka as well as Kalinga. How do you explain this dichotomy?
This particular question may open a Pandora’s box. The historians of north India really far exceed in the subject while the south is not yet close to them. Eventually these developments led to a mental picture that the history of north of the Vindayas is the history of the country itself. The historical writings undermined the south and used a blanket term “Indian” — though neglecting the southern touch. I can list at least 50 such books, from my very department’s library . The chapter “Feudalism in South Indian Context” of my book is self-explanatory in this context. Though scholars the world over accept that the so-called undeciphered Harappan script has links to languages of the Dravidian family, we prefer to leave it aside as undeciphered. Though the familiar division of Indian society into four on caste basis has been checked and opposed right from its initiation in the Vedic age, still the basic text books do not show this. All this implies the need for rewriting our history books with absolute objectivity. A senior historian has voiced long back that Indian history should start from the banks of river Kaveri instead of the Ganga.
On similar lines our students are told about southern kings in one single chapter, in which the Cholas, Pandeyas, Cheras are all clubbed together despite the fact that often Cheras, Sinhalas as also the Pandeyas allied against the Cholas. Doesn’t this short shrift to an important Indian dynasty deprive our students of a more balanced representation of our past?
Of course, there is no other dynasty in the whole of Indian history, perhaps the universe, that has survived and continued to rule right from B.C to the 13th A.D — which includes the complete ancient period and partially the medieval one, with ups and downs, except the three, viz the Cheras, Cholas and Pandeyas. The Greek and Roman writers exhibit a sense of fear over the gold drain into these kingdoms caused by the excessive imports in the Augustus Era. The two epics of India, Ramayana and Mahabharata, do refer to them. Some of the tribes in the South East Asian islands go with the names of the three dynasties. Asokan inscriptions refer to them as neighbours, meaning they were independent of the Mauryan yoke. Kharavela of Kalinga perceived the confederation of these three dynasties as a threat. Even in Pakistan, Afghanistan and the land beyond carry these dynastical names as their place names today too. The Cholas were the first to excel in a navy and succeeded in subduing the Far East islands politically, culturally and commercially. Until the advent of the Europeans in sea commerce, the southern powers had both east and west overseas commerce in their hands. Embassies were sent to China as an extension of commerce. The dialogue can go on.
Yes, our younger generations are deprived of a marvellous piece of their history, which is definitely very unfortunate.
A hole in the narrative - The Hindu
There are some in this forum beat their chest about "Ancient Indian culture" as if it is monolithic. It is not there never was a "India" as we know today till independence from the British.
In my days 50 odd years ago there was very little history of South India in the History books. South Indian Dynasties, or freedom fighters were totally ignored. Till I came to USA and started meeting people from different regions of India, and then traveling through various parts of India I have come to appreciate the culture of modern day India.
Think history, think of the Mauryas, the Guptas, the Sultanate and the Mughals. Maybe, somewhere down the line sneak in a chapter on the Cholas, and a paragraph or two on the likes of the Pandeyas, the Cheras, the Vakatakas and the rest. Some though have gone beyond this lopsided approach to our history and focussed on the achievements of the Cholas, the empire that lasted more than a millennium. Many years ago, the venerable Nilakant Sastri came up with a landmark study of the Cholas. Recently, S. Chandnibi, an academic at Aligarh Muslim University, concentrated on epigraphical data from the dynasty in her book, “Epigraphical Reading in the Chola History” to reveal to us some of the evidence of the vastness of the empire.
As youngsters we learn about Mauryan Emperor Ashoka’s expedition to Sri Lanka as also the Battle of Kalinga. Yet we are told little about how Raja Raja Chola I’s empire included Sri Lanka as well as Kalinga. How do you explain this dichotomy?
This particular question may open a Pandora’s box. The historians of north India really far exceed in the subject while the south is not yet close to them. Eventually these developments led to a mental picture that the history of north of the Vindayas is the history of the country itself. The historical writings undermined the south and used a blanket term “Indian” — though neglecting the southern touch. I can list at least 50 such books, from my very department’s library . The chapter “Feudalism in South Indian Context” of my book is self-explanatory in this context. Though scholars the world over accept that the so-called undeciphered Harappan script has links to languages of the Dravidian family, we prefer to leave it aside as undeciphered. Though the familiar division of Indian society into four on caste basis has been checked and opposed right from its initiation in the Vedic age, still the basic text books do not show this. All this implies the need for rewriting our history books with absolute objectivity. A senior historian has voiced long back that Indian history should start from the banks of river Kaveri instead of the Ganga.
On similar lines our students are told about southern kings in one single chapter, in which the Cholas, Pandeyas, Cheras are all clubbed together despite the fact that often Cheras, Sinhalas as also the Pandeyas allied against the Cholas. Doesn’t this short shrift to an important Indian dynasty deprive our students of a more balanced representation of our past?
Of course, there is no other dynasty in the whole of Indian history, perhaps the universe, that has survived and continued to rule right from B.C to the 13th A.D — which includes the complete ancient period and partially the medieval one, with ups and downs, except the three, viz the Cheras, Cholas and Pandeyas. The Greek and Roman writers exhibit a sense of fear over the gold drain into these kingdoms caused by the excessive imports in the Augustus Era. The two epics of India, Ramayana and Mahabharata, do refer to them. Some of the tribes in the South East Asian islands go with the names of the three dynasties. Asokan inscriptions refer to them as neighbours, meaning they were independent of the Mauryan yoke. Kharavela of Kalinga perceived the confederation of these three dynasties as a threat. Even in Pakistan, Afghanistan and the land beyond carry these dynastical names as their place names today too. The Cholas were the first to excel in a navy and succeeded in subduing the Far East islands politically, culturally and commercially. Until the advent of the Europeans in sea commerce, the southern powers had both east and west overseas commerce in their hands. Embassies were sent to China as an extension of commerce. The dialogue can go on.
Yes, our younger generations are deprived of a marvellous piece of their history, which is definitely very unfortunate.
A hole in the narrative - The Hindu
There are some in this forum beat their chest about "Ancient Indian culture" as if it is monolithic. It is not there never was a "India" as we know today till independence from the British.
