Colonialist Views and their Contribution

Colonialist views emerged from the belief that European powers were culturally, intellectually, and technologically superior to the societies they colonized. These views were often justified through ideas such as the “civilizing mission,” racial hierarchy, and economic exploitation, which portrayed colonial rule as beneficial and necessary for the progress of colonized regions. Colonialists argued that their presence would bring order, modern governance, education, and economic development to what they considered “backward” societies.

Colonialist Views and their Contribution

Colonialist Views and their Contribution

Introduction

Colonialist views developed alongside the expansion of European empires, rooted in the assumption that colonial powers were superior in culture, race, and intellect. These views presented colonialism as a benevolent enterprise, often described as a “civilizing mission,” aimed at transforming colonized societies through Western values, institutions, and economic systems. In reality, such ideas mainly served to justify political domination and economic exploitation, while undermining indigenous traditions and autonomy.

Modern research on the history of ancient India

Although educated Indians retained their traditional history in the form of handwritten epics, Puranas, and semi-biographical works, modern research in the history of ancient India began only in the second half of the eighteenth century to serve the needs of the British colonial administration. When Bengal and Bihar fell under the rule of the East India Company in 1765, they found it difficult to administer the Hindu law of inheritance. Therefore, in 1776, the Manu Smriti, (the law-book of Manu), which was considered authoritative, was translated into English as A Code of Gentoo Laws. Pandits were associated with British judges to administer Hindu civil law and maulvis to administer that of Muslims.

Founding of the Asiatic Society

The initial efforts to understand ancient laws and customs, which continued largely until the eighteenth century, culminated in the establishment in Calcutta in 1784 of the Asiatic Society of Bengal. It was set up by a civil servant of the East India Company, Sir William Jones (1746–94). He was the first to suggest that Sanskrit, Latin, and Greek belonged to the same family of languages. He also translated the play known as the Abhijnanashakuntalam into English in 1789; the Bhagvadgita, the most popular Hindu religious text was translated into English by Wilkins in 1785.

Similarities with European languages

The Bombay Asiatic Society was set up in 1804, and the Asiatic Society of Great Britain was set up in London in 1823. William Jones emphasized that originally the European languages were very similar to Sanskrit and the Iranian language. This enthused European countries such as Germany, France, and Russia, to foster Indological studies. During the first half of the nineteenth century, chairs in Sanskrit were established in the UK and several other European countries.

Max Muller’s study of Indology

The greatest impetus to Indological studies was given by the Germanborn scholar F. Max Mueller (1823–1902), who was largely based in England. The Revolt of 1857 caused Britain to realize that it badly needed a deeper knowledge of the manners and social systems of an alien people over whom it ruled. Similarly, the Christian missionaries sought to uncover the vulnerabilities in the Hindu religion to win converts and strengthen the British empire. To meet these needs, ancient scriptures were translated on a massive scale under the editorship of Max Mueller. Altogether fifty volumes, some in several parts, were published under the Sacred Books of the East series. Although a few Chinese and Iranian texts were included, ancient Indian texts were predominant.

Autocratic rule of the Indians

In the introductions to these volumes and the books based on them, Max Mueller and other Western scholars made certain generalizations about the nature of ancient Indian history and society. They stated that the ancient Indians lacked a sense of history, especially of the element of time and chronology. They added that Indians were accustomed to despotic rule, and also natives were so engrossed in the problems of spiritualism or of the next world that they felt no concern about the problems of this world. The Western scholars stressed that Indians had experienced neither a sense of nationhood nor any form of selfgovernment.

The first systematic history of ancient India

Many of these generalizations were made in the Early History of India by Vincent Arthur Smith (1843–1920), who wrote in 1904 the first systematic history of ancient India. His book, which was based on an in-depth study of the available sources gave primacy to political history. It served as a textbook for nearly fifty years and is still used by scholars. Smith’s approach to history was pro-imperialist. As a loyal member of the Indian Civil Service, he emphasized the role of foreigners in ancient India.

Lack of political unity in India

Alexander’s invasion accounted for almost one-third of his book. India was presented as a land of despotism which had not experienced political unity until the establishment of British rule. He observes: ‘Autocracy is substantially the only form of government with which the historian of India is concerned’. In sum, British interpretations of Indian history served to denigrate the Indian character and achievements, and justify colonial rule. A few of these observations appeared to have some validity. Thus, in comparison to the Chinese, Indians did not show any strong sense of chronology although in the earlier stage, important events were dated with reference to the death of Gautama Buddha.

Good promotional material

However, generalizations made by colonialist historians were by and large either false or grossly exaggerated, but served as good propaganda material for the perpetuation of the despotic British rule. Their emphasis on the Indian tradition of one-man rule could justify the system which vested all powers in the hands of the viceroy. Similarly, if Indians were obsessed with the problems of the next world, the British colonial masters had no option but to look after their life in this world. Without any experience of self-rule in the past, how could the natives manage their affairs in the present? At the heart of all such generalizations lay the need to demonstrate that Indians were incapable of governing themselves.

Conclusion

Colonialist views were grounded in notions of superiority and the belief that colonial rule was necessary for the progress of colonized societies. These ideas provided moral and intellectual justification for political domination, economic exploitation, and cultural control. While colonial powers claimed to bring modernization, order, and development, such claims often ignored the rich histories, knowledge systems, and social structures that already existed in colonized regions.

(FAQ) about Colonialist Views and their Contribution ?