The article interrogates the colonial assertion that ancient India lacked historical consciousness, a notion rooted in the critiques of thinkers like Al-Beruni, James Mill, Hegel, and Macaulay. By examining the evolution of this critique and contrasting it with indigenous historiographical traditions, ranging from the Itihasa-Purana corpus and royal genealogies to professional storytellers, Buddhist and Jain chronicles, and inscriptional evidence, the study exposes the limitations and ideological motives of colonial and Eurocentric frameworks. The analysis is grounded in the methodologies and findings of key modern Indian historians, including Romila Thapar, D.D. Kosambi and R.S. Sharma reveal that Indian traditions demonstrated sophisticated, culturally specific forms of recording and interpreting the past. The article establishes that rather than indicating a deficiency, India's multifaceted historiographical practices reflected distinct intellectual environments, values, and approaches to history. The major conclusion is that the myth of India’s "ahistoricity" was a construct serving colonial domination, and that contemporary scholarship, supported by textual, epigraphic, and archaeological evidence, now recognises the richness, complexity, and validity of ancient Indian historical traditions on their terms.
International Journal of History
