The Study ::.Prospectus

May witnesses intense activities in the field of civil services exam organized by the UPSC. This is the month marked by the announcement of the final result of civil services exam following which some successful candidates go ahead to fill up the vacant posts in All India Services. It is, however, the same month when some future bureaucrats take their initial steps towards the enviable success by participating in pre-exam. Thousands and thousands of graduates and postgraduates make the momentous decision for their civil services career in this month.
However, the big indecision that new comers face is what the basis of the selection of optional papers in civil services exam should be. Opting for a choice turns out to be a dilemma because of the contrary suggestions offered to them by the successful candidates in whose contact they come invariably. There is, however, a simple mantra to solve the dilemma: just give preference to your own interest and aptitude. You must remember that you cannot expect good marks if you do not have interest in and aptitude for a particular subject. Giving precedence only to the level of scoring often turns out to be an ill-conceived decision. Here again you must keep in mind that high scoring is possible only when your interest and aptitude remain in fine tune with the basic demands of a so-called high-scoring subject. As the main focus of our study is history, the write-up points out the fundamental requirements of history as a subject.
Among the participants in civil services exam both at the level of prelims and mains a vast majority of candidates choose history as their optional paper. The reason for the high popularity of history is due to the lucidity in the syllabus and the myth about its score-friendliness. However, the aspiring candidates must know that not a general score in between 270 and 300 but only a specific score of 330 plus in any subjects including history can guarantee them success. So our entire efforts should be geared towards making a major improvement in specific scoring. The destination cannot be reached without an insight into the essence of the subject, which is of primary importance. Understanding history means grasping the forces of change and continuity underlined in political, economic, social and cultural fields.
While pondering over a question, the aspect of change should be essentially clear. If we have to emphasize the features of the Guptan administration, we must be clear about the change in administrative structure from the Mauryan period to the Rajput era. Also, with changing time, even the basis of and the approach to the evaluation of a social science subject including history are destined to alter. For example, the National Curriculum Framework (NCF), 2005 recommends that children’s life at school must be linked to their life outside the school. The proposal marks a departure from the legacy of bookish learning which had continued to shape our educational system but had caused a hiatus among the school, the home and the community. NCF’s suggestion seeks to discourage rote learning and subvert the disciplinary boundaries among different subject areas. No wonder then that the prefaces of recently published NCERT books about world history harp on a clear grasp of the grounds and modes of the changes around us. A critical awareness of history calls for a correspondence between the past and the present.
Scholars must internalize the latest approach to the study of history, which demands a correlation between the past and the present. Every generation tries to look for the genesis of the existing ideologies and trends in history. It is in this context that the evaluation and reevaluation of history keep going from generation to generation. Since the last two decades both in the national and global contexts intense institutional changes have come to the fore, for example, the dusk of the bipolar world order has seen the dawn the era of globalization. Due to the startling breakthroughs in information technology, the size of the globe has shrunk considerably to pave the way for a global knowledge village. As the two World Wars shattered the ideas and institutions which had come into existence in the wake of the French Revolution and the Vienna World Order, the changes which had occurred in the 1990s have severely jolted the foundations of the ideologies and institutions shaped in the post-War period. Thus somehow or the other we try to find out the raison d’être of the changes in history.
The tendency to look for the underlying principle underlining historical changes makes us ask whether the American imperialism of the twenty-first century keeps up a correspondence with the European imperialism of the nineteenth century or if the American imperialism stems from the basic weakness in American Revolution. We continue to ask ourselves if the World Trade organization (WTO) is an avataar of neo-colonialism through which the West seeks to impose unequal economic relations with Afro-Asian countries or whether the racial tensions in East Europe region are not an unfinished agenda of the Paris Peace Conference. We will befool ourselves if we pretend that the on-going failure of the UNO in solving the burning global issues does not remind us of the impotence of the League of Nations. As these examples underscore, a critical study of history calls for a constant communication of the past with the present. Without a dialogue between the two antithetical time periods, we cannot understand a contemporary historical phenomenon. If we are required to make an evaluation of American Revolution and American constitution, we cannot ignore the significant role that these seminal events have played in consolidating America as a superpower. Likewise, while writing on the topic of Russian Revolution the perception of a student in the 1990s will be different from that in the 1980s due to the bearing of a past action on a contemporary event. A contemporary criticism of the Paris Peace Conference cannot afford to lose hindsight knowledge of the recent Kosovo crisis.
The same phenomenon of a correlation between the past and the present applies to the context of Indian history as well. An assessment of the social impact of Buddhism cannot afford to ignore the fact that in 1956 Bhimrao Ambedkar encouraged the people from the depressed class to adopt Buddhism. Likewise, the policy of Dhamma by Ashoka was not simply the expression of individual faith but rather worked as a cementing force in maintaining the unity and integrity of an Empire which was multi-lingual and multi-racial in character. Ashoka’s policy corresponds with the contemporary thrust on upholding the principle of unity in diversity through an egalitarian policy enshrined in the constitution, right of citizenship and the insignias such as the national flag and anthem. Furthermore, in the foreign policy of Ashoka one can get the reflection of the doctrine of Punchsheel which worked as the cornerstone of India’s foreign policy in the post-independence era. In fact, the foreign policy of India has been guided by two different lines: Buddhist approach and Kautilyan opportunism. But when we observe minutely we find that the first appears more decisive than the second one. Furthermore, a scrutiny of the origin of Hinduism reveals that temple cult and idol-worship have marked the quintessence of Hinduism. In one sense the fundamental nature of Hinduism was crystallized during the Guptan Age, which had seen the assimilation between Aryan and non-Aryan elements that led to a valorization of culture over religion. As a result, Hinduism became a way of life: culture rather than a rigid set of orthodox beliefs.
Religion as culture came to the fore in medieval India. With the consolidation of Muslim power the Indian society was horizontally divided into two different communities: the Hindus and the Muslims lived together for centuries and helped develop a composite culture manifested in language and literature, religion, dress and diet, and art and architecture. The composite culture has been a very important feature of Indian life. Even when India was undermined with partition on the basis of religion, a substantial number of Muslims chose to stay in India due to the momentum of the composite culture. Furthermore, even the newly born and so-called pure haven for the Muslims—Pakistan—had to undergo a vivisection. The slogan given by the nationalists of East Bengal—”Amar Sonar Bangla”—was, in one sense, the victory of culture over religion.
A major socio-historical trend in medieval India—Sufism—bears out a similar precedence of culture over religion. Turkish invasion had presented a very cruel face of Islam but Sufism reflected a mild and human face. The emphasis of Sufism was to make soul—Ruh—free through professing emotions—Qalb. The propagation of Sufism emphasized love as the means of salvation. Today when due to Jehadi politics and terrorism the image of Islam is being tarnished, once again the relevance of Sufism becomes clear. The actual solution to violence is love. In this regard even Akbar appears to be a very important personality. One can project modernity in some of the policies of Akbar, for example, his promulgation of Sulah-I-Kul stemmed from his subscription to socio-religious tolerance. In the history of medieval India Akbar was the first ruler who genuinely imbibed the multi-cultural character of India and then accordingly shaped the policy of his administration. His achievement was unique in the sense that at that time Islamic Empires of Central and West Asia were divided between the sects of Shia and Sunni. Furthermore, even Europe which was going through renaissance was torn with religious divisiveness between the Catholics and the Protestants. In one sense, Akbar’s foregrounding of multi-cultural character of the country remains much relevant to contemporary India, which recognizes and values the plurality of culture. Akbar’s role in Indian history cannot be appraised correctly without a consideration of the hindsight view of the plural Indian polity of the contemporary time.
A similar consideration merits attention in the assessment of the role of English in the emergence of modern India. The introduction of English education was guided solely by colonial interest but it inadvertently produced some positive impact as well: inculcated liberalism and nationalism in the minds of the educated Indians. The current, spectacular successes in computer software could not have been possible without the positive impact of English education introduced by Macaulay in the nineteenth century. The nineteenth century is supposed to have ushered India in the modern age, primarily because of the movement for socio-religious reforms which, however, suffered from some such weaknesses which still have a bearing on the contemporary Indian society. The chinks in the reform’s armour surfaced because of the undue emphasis that the reformers gave on government legislation in place of educating the common people about the existing social evils. That is why in spite of frequent government legislations little progress was made in this direction. A survey reveals that in nineteenth century only 38 widows were remarried, and even today social evils like infant marriage and widow system still exist. Likewise, despite the legislation for the abolition of Sati, an idealized picture of the system still survives in the imagination of the people. This is the reason why an event of self-immolation took place at Deorala in 1987. There is also another explanation why social reformers were not successful in eliminating a social evil like the Sati system: the sectarian and religious boundaries of the reformers were clearly marked. The demarcation becomes unmistakably noticeable in Hindu reformers’ zeal for the upliftment of the Hindu society only in contrast to the whole and sole focus of the Muslim reformers on the amelioration of the Muslim society alone. Hardly do we find any reformers who could rise above the narrow boundary of religion and sect in order to speak for all the communities. The flaw in the reforms movement has proved too much costly as even after independence India has persistently failed to create a universal civil code for all her people.
In order to secure good marks in history one needs to develop a comparative approach in analyzing things by keeping an eye over the subtle relationship between the past and the present. While answering a question, students are generally much particular about vomiting the information—facts and figures—which they have so assiduously collected, but they must remember that they are not supposed to behave like news reporters. Instead, they need to cultivate an analytical approach to prove their point of view, for facts and figures merely help in validating the ideas. The real thing that clinches the issue for them in an examination situation is the comparatist-analytical line of writing that draws on the correlation between the past and the present. This approach contributes significantly towards bringing the answer up to the desired standard. A very simple looking but indispensably essential thing, that is to say, catching the right spirit of the questions asked is also highly important. Whenever we go through the question paper(s) of the Main Exam, we underline the difference in the nature of the questions. The examples make the point crystal clear:
1. Personality-based questions: “Evaluate the achievements of Ashoka.”
2. Question based on state boundary and political structure: “Throw light on the expansion of the Mauryan Empire.”
3. Administration-related question: “Clarify the important aspects of Mansabdari system. Why did weaknesses appear in this system in course of time?”
4. Question based on socio-economic system: “Comment on economic and social life during the Guptan period.”
5. Questions based on cultural artifacts such as religion, art and literature:
(i) “Throw light on the development of literature during the Mughal period.”
(ii) “Focus on the features of architecture during the period of Akbar. What sorts of changes can one underline in the architecture under Shahjahan?
Now on the basis of one or two examples we need to be also clear about the difference between general (non-comparatist) and specific (comparatist) writing. While evaluating the achievements of Ashoka we can follow either a non-comparatist or a comparatist approach. In the first model which presents a general sort of writing, we state the achievements of Ashoka in political, administrative and cultural fields. On the other hand in the second model which is considered to be standard writing we keep in mind the following specificities that must get underlined in a standard answer:
1. We will evaluate the achievements of Ashoka in different spheres. While stating the achievements of Ashoka in each sphere, we should clarify the ways in which the achievements are specific in comparison to his predecessors and the subsequent rulers. For example, he gave up the policy of military conquest adopted by his predecessors even as he maintained the largest Empire in the Indian sub-continent during his life time without the use of force. Likewise, in foreign affairs he started an innovative policy. Before him the decisive factor in foreign policy was military power as well as martial alliance based on the policy of opportunism professed by Kautilya. Ashoka replaced it with a policy of “live and let live” which emphasized on peaceful co-existence. In administrative field, Ashoka presented the model of patriarchal monarchy through which he tried to bridge the gap between the state and society. Rulers before him had given emphasis on the implementation of the existing social rules but Ashoka, through the policy of Dhamma, tried to enforce new social rules. An evaluation in relative terms focuses the desired light on a historical personality such as Ashoka.
2. The achievements of Ashoka should be highlighted also in the context of the hindsight knowledge of the subsequent periods. More specifically, we can underline the significance of his policy and work in the context of our own contemporary time. For example, Ashoka’s sensitivity to man, beast and environment must be evaluated with a gloss of our own concerns for human rights and ecological balance. Similarly, his foreign policy calls for an assessment in light of the doctrine of Punchsheel adopted in the Nehruvian era.
3. Since there is the use of the term “evaluation,” so we should remember that we have to be critical in our appraisal, especially if some of the policies had backfired. For example, we can mention that Ashoka’s policy of peaceful co-existence does not appear much successful as within the fifty years of his death the Empire he had raised shattered to pieces. But still the success of Ashoka lies in the fact that at both the domestic and foreign fronts he had adopted innovative policies. For the last two thousand and four hundred years the world has immensely progressed materially but morally it has failed to traverse the path paved by Ashoka.
As next example with regard to the privileging of the comparatist method over the non-comparatist one we can take a culture-based question such as “Throw light on the development of literature during the Mughal period.” This sort of question is factual in nature but here also we should prefer the comparatist approach over the non-comparatist one. In a non-comparatist type of writing different sorts of literature would be classified with a large number of texts in each group, but in a standard variety of comparatist writing there should be a focus on the development of literature during the Mughal period in its totality. We can say that it is not sufficient to discuss the different types of literature and enumerate a large number of texts but rather we should highlight both the trends in literary activities and the factors engendering those trends. For example, while considering the development of literature during the Mughal period we can underline the following trends:
1. Under the Mughals there was the exploitation of resources in a vast region. So better availability of resources encouraged literary and artistic activities.
2. Mughal emperors gave patronage to a large number of scholars and their court became a cynosure for such scholars who came from very far-off regions.
3. Mughal emperors evinced interest in literary activities and some of Mughal emperors including Babar and Jahangir composed their autobiographies.
4. The Mughal period was marked by the policy of religious tolerance and cultural assimilation. Mughal emperors encouraged the translation of Sanskrit texts into Persian. During this period Hindu scholars made a contribution to the development of Persian literature such as Surjan Rai Bhandari, Bhimsen Burhanpuri while Muslim scholars helped develop Indian literature.
5. Mughal emperors gave patronage to Hindu scholars as well. In this way Mughal emperors encouraged Indian literature also.
6. During this period as the result of Bhakti and Sufi movement regional languages and literatures like Avadhi (Tulsidas), Braj Bhasa (Surdas) and Marathi (Eknath) were encouraged.
7. During this period in regional states (Ahmadnagar, Bijapur and Golkonda) too apart from Persian language even regional languages like Marathi and Telugu enjoyed the state patronage. In this way we should underline the trends and then we should present the name of certain texts and scholars as examples. Trends should be discussed in paragraphs and not presented as points. In analytical writing trends are extremely important while facts and figures are there to enforce a point of view. This is the reason why in the study of history it becomes imperative to underline the elements of change, but some students unfortunately waste their time only in collecting facts and figures.
In standard writing the meaning of the key terms which help construct the questions should be clear. Here considering the convenience of the students certain terms with their implied meaning are clarifed:
1. Discuss: To talk about something with another person in order to exchange ideas or decide something.
2. Explain: To make something clear and easy to understand.
3. Analyse: To examine and think about something carefully in order to understand it.
4. Criticise: To give your opinion and judgement about the good and bad qualities of someone or something.
5. Comment: To express an opinion about someone or something.
6. Describe: To say what something or someone look like by giving details about them.
7. Evaluate: To carefully consider something to see how useful and valuable it is.
8. Do you agree?: In most of the cases you are supposed to strike a note of disagreement although exceptions are there.
9. In the light of the above statement: It means you have to write within the boundary of the statement and not beyond it.
Lastly, you must always keep in mind a well-known proverb—”Well begun is half done.” A good start is the primary requirement of a standard writing. Apart from an ideal start, clarity in vision and a free flowing expression clothed in standard language are indispensable.