‘Unless knowledge of epigraphy develops, no ancient or medieval history of this country can be studied'
The Hindu
Noboru Karashima, Professor Emeritus, University of Tokyo. Photo: M. Vedhan
In an interview, Japanese scholar Noboru Karashima speaks on his recent work, the state of historical research in universities and government institutes in India, and his deep concern over the uncertain future of the discipline of epigraphy in India.
It is now over 50 years since Noboru Karashima, now Professor
Emeritus at the University of Tokyo, published his first study on the
medieval economic history of South India – a small essay on land control
in Allur and Isanamangalam villages in the Cauvery delta, based on a
study of Chola inscriptions. With that he pioneered a methodological
framework for studying inscriptions, and for interpreting the mass of
information that this historical source contains. He is today a
pre-eminent scholar on the medieval history of south India. He has also
contributed significantly to a rich tradition of Japanese social science
research on India, with his hallmark of careful empirical research. In
this interview given to Parvathi Menon in Bangalore, the
Japanese scholar speaks on his recent work, the state of historical
research in universities and government institutes in India, and his
deep concern over the uncertain future of the discipline of epigraphy in
India.
Professor Karashima, you have done path-breaking work on ancient and
medieval south Indian history. You have also been part of the group of
Indian and foreign social scientists who, since the mid-1960s, have
nurtured and given academic shape to the broad discipline of what is
called Tamil Studies, through publications, collaborations, and most
notably, through the work of the International Association for Tamil
Research. You recently quit as President of the IATR, citing your
discomfort with its proximity to the political establishment in Tamil
Nadu as one of your reasons. What do you think is the future of the IATR
and Tamil Studies in general?
I have already clarified my thoughts and stand concerning the Tamil Conference and the IATR, in an article published in The Hindu
on July 23, 2010, and have nothing more to say about it. Somebody had
to sound the alarm about the IATR, which got entangled with local
politics, and that is what I did. The reason for my resignation as its
President is that I had no hope of reviving the IATR from within. In
addition, there were the factors of my age and health. I hope its
resurrection will be taken up by young and sincere Tamil scholars.
After the publication of your last book, Ancient to Medieval: South Indian Society in Transition, you and your collaborators have moved on to researching the religious history of the medieval period, and the role of mathas. What are your conclusions here, and do they fit in with your theory of economic change in medieval south India?
I wanted to relate the socio-economic changes that occurred in the 12th
and 13th centuries to the contemporary religious movements, something I
did not touch on in my recent book. For that purpose, I organised a
project on the study of inscriptions with references to mathas,
called “Medieval Religious Movements in South India: Study of Matha
Inscriptions,” with my colleagues Y. Subbarayalu, P. Shanmugam and
others.
There were two religious traditions which caused the development of matha activities in the Tamil country, and I will explain them briefly.
The first was the Bhakti movement of the period from the 7th to 10th
centuries, which is attested to by the recitation of Devaram hymns and
Tirumurai in mathas of the 11th century and after. The second is
the North Indian Brahmanical tradition brought by the influx of Saiva
ascetics to the Tamil country during the 11th and 12th centuries, which
is shown by the appointment of those Brahmana ascetics as rajagurus by Rajaraja I and Rajendra I.
These two traditions merged when the people of the lower social
sections, such as cultivators, merchants, artisans, [members of the]
hill tribes and soldiers, who had increased their power during the 12th
century, also joined in matha activities in the 13th century, as
our study of the inscriptions indicate. Their activities are spread all
over the Tamil country. Sivananabodam, written in Tamil by
Meykandar, a Vellalla ascetic, in the 13th century, is the hallmark of
this fusion of the two traditions and the establishment of South Indian
Saivasiddhantism in the 13th century.
Thus, we can say that the social change that occurred in the Tamil
country during the 12th and 13th centuries, which I have clarified in my
recent book, was well related to the religious movement too.
There is a great deal of published historical work on ancient and
medieval south Indian history. How would you describe the state of
research into the history of the late-17th and 18th centuries, when with
the onset of colonialism the region experienced considerable economic
and social turbulence?
I should say that it is still insufficient and unsatisfactory. There is
not enough work that goes into the source material properly. There are
lots of new ideas around which history is written, but we need to
reconstruct history more substantially by studying the sources.
Past studies on the period emphasised the point that British colonial
rule devastated the Indian economy entirely, but recently many scholars
have begun to argue that the Indian economy continued to develop during
the 18th and 19th centuries also.
This issue should be studied from the angle of the Asian economy,
particularly its commercial development, and its relationship to British
imperialism and global history.
The most important thing is to study historical change based on material
showing domestic conditions, and not only from the Portuguese, Dutch or
British trade records. In that sense, recent studies of my colleagues,
H. Kotani who examined Maratha documents on the watan system; T.
Mizushima and H. Yanagisawa, who studied economic change by analysing
British land settlement, are very significant. If we continue such
studies, we may be able to get a clear idea on the economic conditions
of the 18th century.
Why do you think the 18th century is a neglected period? Is it
because of the difficulties in reading source material, or because of a
waning interest in history?
I think that in general there is deterioration in the quality of
historical studies in the universities in the south. When I first came
in 1961 and joined the Department of Ancient Indian History and
Archaeology [of the University of Madras], scholars like K.A. Nilakanta
Sastri and N. Venkataramanayya had done some very substantial work
studying inscriptions and literary sources. I would also like to make
the point that while the Dravidian movement in Tamil Nadu was
historically very important and socially progressive, especially their
view that the caste system needed to be changed, it unfortunately had an
anti-intellectual tendency. The situation was something like what took
place in China during the Cultural Revolution, a movement that may have
been historically necessary to some extent, but did great damage to
academics.
What about the government research institutes?
I think they suffer even more, and I don't know why. I think not enough
attention is being paid to them. The Director General of the
Archaeological Survey of India used to be an archaeologist. But for an
interim period of several years, IAS officers took the place of the DG
and they did not have any knowledge of archaeology itself. A similar
thing happened in the State departments of archaeology too. Of epigraphy
IAS officers did not know anything, and as a consequence the
Epigraphical Office has suffered. For a considerable period until
recently there was no recruitment of new epigraphists in the office.
When I first went to Ooty in 1962 to the Epigraphical Office, the
atmosphere was active and intellectually dynamic. Dr. K.V. Ramesh, Dr.
B.R. Gopal (he is no more) and Dr. S.H. Rithi were young epigraphy
assistants who subsequently did very good work. Now that atmosphere has
been lost, as there has not been any encouragement for epigraphists for a
long time. Unless the knowledge of epigraphy develops, no ancient or
medieval history of this country can be studied. These days most
scholars, Indian and foreign, depend on summaries of the inscriptions
that appear in the annual reports. They therefore don't go into the
material.
What do you think can be done to encourage epigraphy?
We have to start a system of contracting work to outside epigraphists to
work on the inscriptions. Fortunately this has happened recently. The
Tamil University came forward to help in digitalising the impressions
(rubbings) preserved in the Mysore Epigraphy Office of the ASI and I
appreciate the decision taken by the ASI and the Tamil University. Two
new epigraphists were appointed recently in the Mysore office. I can
only hope the situation will gradually improve.
And if not?
If not, the study of ancient history will die in this country! I am not
saying this lightly at all, and am very afraid of this happening. We are
really at a critical stage, I should say. If this happens, history will
be built only on the basis of ideas and theory, and not on substantial
work based on historical sources.
