India: A Concise History [Paperback]

Francis Watson (Author), Dilip Hiro (Author)

Book Description

ISBN-10: 0500283737 | ISBN-13: 978-0500283738 | Publication Date: September 2002 | Edition: Rev Upd Su

Francis Watson's acclaimed history of India begins in the third millennium BC with the Indus Valley civilization. The subsequent influx of pastoral nomads, first in a long series of invasions from the north-west which included the Moghuls nearly 3,000 years later, established the Vedic religious tradition. In a gradual assimilation of popular cults, and a formalization by the Sanskrit language and the institution of caste, this tradition supplied the cohesion upon which a national consciousness, in its Western sense, is a comparatively recent grafting. The enduring distinctiveness of India, its widely recognized but often bewildering 'diversity of unity', emerges from these pages as a product of geographical simplicity and historical complexity.

Editorial Reviews

Review

A brilliant condensation of an overwhelming mass of material and manages to preserve a masterly overall balance. -- History Today

An excellent basic guide to a vast and fascinating country. -- Irish Times

About the Author

The late Francis Watson was Director of Counter-Propaganda to the Government of India and the author of Gandhi, The Trial of Mr Gandhi and The Frontiers of China. A journalist and commentator on Indian affairs, Dilip Hiro's many books include Inside India Today, Dictionary of the Middle East and Holy Wars: The Rise of Islamic Fundamentalism.

Product Details

• Paperback: 200 pages
• Publisher: Thames & Hudson; Rev Upd Su edition (September 2002)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0500283737
• ISBN-13: 978-0500283738
• Product Dimensions: 9 x 7.1 x 0.6 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1.2 pounds (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 1.6 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (5 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #1,208,873 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

13 of 14 people found the following review helpful:

1.0 out of 5 stars Biased Presentation, September 27, 2002

By A Customer

This review is from: India: A Concise History (Paperback)

Though the author clearly states that this book is a concise history of India, but readers still expect an impartial view of the history and some justice to the subject matter. This book has an almost clinical feel to it- very cut and dry. Emphasis has been placed on names, places and dates rather than the bigger picture, which might be expected of such a small book attempting to cover more than 5000 years of Indian history. Sometime rambling sometimes lucid text is densely written and drops subtle hints of British superiority.

I started reading the book and had not looked at the biography of the author. Almost 1/3rd of the way through the book, a clear pattern emerged wherein the author tried to project that much of what the world knows of India's glory is a result of British efforts. And how the British brought civility and culture to India. It also seemed that the image that the author projected of India was along the lines of what a British "sahib" may have thought of the locals. It was then that I read the author's biography and saw that he was Director of Counter-Propaganda to the Government of India. From the period when he served the government it is obvious that the author was not employed by Government of Independent India but the British Government ruling India (which technically speaking was also the Government of India).

I really feel that justice was not done to the subject matter. Maybe someone who is both- a patriotic Indian and a history buff- might enjoy some aspects of this book. An average reader would find the treatment of this subject poor (and boring) at worst and mediocre at best. I would not recommend this book.

3 of 4 people found the following review helpful:

1.0 out of 5 stars Dry and Terse, May 6, 2001

By 

L Bhave (Frederica, DE United States) - See all my reviews

This review is from: India: A Concise History (Paperback)

Although the black and white photographs in the book were excellent, the context was dry and terse. Basically, the book was nothing more but a listing of dates and people. The author showed no creativity in making the history remotely interesting.

Photos were included that had no text related to them. Anyone who does not have previous knowledge of India's history would not comprehend why the photos were included.

Although I am an avid reader, I had to force myself to finish this book.

1.0 out of 5 stars Racist Eurocentric Indian History, July 11, 2011

By 

Mad-Dawg - See all my reviews

This review is from: India: A Concise History (Paperback)

Francis Watson's India: A Concise History does a remarkable job of condensing the vast, rich, and diverse history of India into a mere two hundred pages, however the entire book is Eurocentric in nature. Watson makes Indian history seem like a collection of unrelated events set out in a "Western" chronological order and owing the origin of events to external stimuli. The result of this is the development of a view of Indian history that encourages one to think as though the people of India have always been an inert mass that have constantly been influenced by a long series of invasions: Aryan, Greco-Bactrian, Islamic, and European among others. Watson's western interpretation of Indian history falters not in the inaccuracy of information or detail but in the assumptions that precede it, the framework with which the work was carried out, and the emphasis of certain aspects and the ignorance of others. His treatment of the British Raj is especially skewed as it glorifies the British while continuing to treat Indians as an inactive mass that are only activated through a western stimulus brought by the British. Thus Watson fails to show the natural growth of nations or civilizations or of the people as an active force, thus what we get is not history, but a meaningless little book of facts that skew our understanding of Indian history.
At the very start of the book Watson writes, "The Westernized name of India...derived originally through the Persian and Greeks... The application of the term to the entire peninsula was also external" (Watson 11). Thus even though the facts may be right, to start the book on such a note shows a lack of understanding of the people of India as an active force and thus instantly creating a barrier between the people of India and the European writer thus making Watson's work Eurocentric in nature. In the same chapter he writes, "English was not the first foreign tongue to be imposed on India as the language of government. In that capacity it replaced the official Persian..." (Watson 17) thus bringing to light the assumptions Watson starts with. The basic assumptions that Watson started off with are further brought to light when he quotes Sir J.R. Seeley, "...he stressed that India was not a nation in the sense understood by his Victorian audiences, its `conquest', such as it was, had been accomplished by armies which were four-fifths Indian in their composition. `There was no India, and therefore, properly speaking, no foreigner'" (Watson18), thus clearly making visible his assumptions. One may think that the facts stated by Watson are evidence that clearly imply the cause for the nature of this book to be true, which I am accusing of being Eurocentric. However by writing this way in the introduction Watson is setting up an empty stage, the geographical entity-India, filled with unresponsive masses, where he shows (in the subsequent chapters) foreign characters moving in and then mysteriously disappearing. The European understanding of a nation was not present in India, "Ashoka, the greatest of India's ancient rulers, had been forgotten", Before the Mughal chronicles `history' may not have existed (Watson 19), however these are all western concepts (nation, history, etc.) applied to a different part of the world. Remnants of the three thousand year old Indo-Gangetic civilization are still present in India; in image 24 Watson himself shows Mohenjo-Daro seals depicting an ancient version of Shiva. The history of India does not need to fit in to the `standard' European model and by drawing examples that show non-conformity with the European history model is unnecessary, thus making the work Eurocentric.
Dividing humanity in terms of skin color is a European practice. Watson's claim for the existence of some sort of racism lacks significant justification to be legitimate. He writes, "The generalized name dasas ... at all times carried the signification of a darker skinned race. But the persistence of a social prejudice in favor of light complexion cannot be overlooked" (Watson 31). Even though the word varna means color, which was used to divide people among classes, Watson's claim seems to be forced. His citation of the fact that most matrimonial ads seek fair skinned people is arbitrary (Watson 31). It is an example of the state India was in during and after the British rule and doesn't seek to explain that the reason for this may be the damage of the Indian psyche by the British. Writing such an example in the section of the Aryan invasion thus seems immature and ignorant.
The British seem to drift into the picture. Watson's treatments of the earlier invasions (including the Mughal rule- which, I would argue, was not exactly an `invasion') seem to justify the British presence in many ways. Again the Indian people are treated as an inert mass, and the incoming of the British is made to seem no different in nature than any of the previous invasions. Watson incessantly speaks of the actions of the British as though they were a wholly beneficial force on the Indian people. He writes, " New and improved roads, the first three hundred miles of railways...telegraph, and efficient postal service brought measurable benefits to all who were prepared to take advantage of the acceleration of trade and information" (Watson 140), never does Watson mention that these communication facilities were made purely in British economic interest. The sole purpose for the British being there was economic exploitation, however, there is no mention of that, however Watson goes on to quote Macauly: "...'the proudest day in English history' (should be) when India should outgrow its political mentors" (Watson 146). Thus clearly stressing exclusively on the beneficial aspects of the British Raj. The role of the British as `political mentors' came to be only so that British India could function well as an administrative economic unit. Later Watson claims the causes of the Revolt of 1857 to be purely because of the liberalizing reforms made by the British (in addition to the cartridge grease trigger), and not the presence of the British itself (Watson 141). Watson's skewed nature of writing alters the way the British Raj is perceived today. Watson contradicts himself when he states that Lord Curzon `feared' the cleverness of the intellectual elite of India (Watson 146). The way Watson has structured the history of the British Raj one may think what was the need for Lord Curzon to `fear' the intellectual elite who, if Watson's history is correct, should in fact love their British `political mentors'.
The foundations for the birth of the Indian National Congress in 1885 are again credited to a British man, Hume. Following this, Watson writes, "This was the body, welcomed at its formation by the Viceroy (Lord Dufferin) that was to become the main instrument of the movement for independence, and the party of majority government after its achievement" (Watson 147). On the same page, he quotes an Indian historian claiming that the founding members of the INC `were proud to describe it (INC) as an offspring of British Rule' (147). Thus, by structuring history this way Watson makes Independent India seem like a product that was predetermined and constructed by the British, secondly he quotes an Indian historian to further strengthen his claim. What accelerated the independence of India was in fact the incoming of the liberals into power in the mid 1940's in England (John Merriman, Chapter on Decolonization, A History of Modern Europe Part II). Again Watson is structuring information such that it skews perceptions of how things actually were; by incredibly glorifying the British and making India seem like a people who have no minds of their own.
Watson's treatment of the Partition of 1947 follows the same framework. Lord Curzon's partition of Bengal in 1905 seems definitely to have been motivated by the British desire to `divide and rule.' However Watson claims, "To Lord Curzon it was a sensible administrative operation, conducted in bland indifference to Indian feelings" (Watson 150). Watson blames the birth of increasing hatred between Hindus and Muslims in the late 1900's to have occurred without British policy instigation; instead he blames it on the previously inert masses. Watson writes, "The songs and slogans and patriotic literature had a Hindu inspiration" (Watson 150), this claim is incorrect since the slogan "Inquilab Zindabad" used in the early 1900's primarily by Bhagat Singh and Ashwaqullah Khan among others is of Persian, and hence Muslim, origin. Again Watson glorifies the British by protecting them from considerable blame for igniting communal violence that ultimately, among other things, led to the partition in 1947.
Thus what we see in this book is a skewed view of Indian history, this Eurocentric approach must be replaced by a more Indocentric approach if the past is to be used properly to face the challenges of today.