A History of India: From the 16th Century to the 20th Century

A History of India #2

by Thomas George Percival Spear

Covers the period from Mughal rule, through the years of British control, to the government of Nehru, with emphasis on the continuity of development from one era to the next.

Genres: History, India, Nonfiction, Historical, 20th Century, Indian Literature

304 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1966

About the author

Thomas George Percival Spear, OBE, was a British historian of modern South Asia, in particular of its colonial period. He taught at both Cambridge University and St. Stephen's College, Delhi.

Reviews

[Jan-Maat]

This was my least favourite of the three related books I have been reading: The Hindus; an alternative history,Romila Thapur's A History of India, Vol. 1: From Origins to 1300 and this one.

It is an ok, rather traditional narrative history and if you want a story of how a Briton saw the history of India from the Mughal empire down to the late 1960s this could be just the book for you.

For me Spear was unimpressive in analysis and judgement, several times early on he would say that such and such a person built a strong kingdom which was destroyed after being defeated in battle. To my mind such a kingdom is not strong, it might have seemed strong or looked impressive, but if it vanished after one battle I would prefer to describe it as brittle or fragile.

There is a duality in his treatment of moves towards independence - Muslims are in his telling very much motivated by external factors - the rise of Ataturk and the end of the Ottoman Empire, Hindus on the other hand are purely driven by internal factors. There is no consideration of the other British domains as a source of comparison and very little about how different ministries in London affected the independence movement.

Spear stresses how East India company institutions and methods of governing in Bengal built upon or simply continued Mughal administration, but the end impact on the reader is to suggest that the Mughal prepared the way for the British Empire, rather than being a dynamic and effective political force in its own right (at least for a while). There is an implication in his narrative that Empire and foreign rule over India was inevitable he actually says this at one point, imagining if the political situation of the late eighteenth century had continued without the rapid expansion of the East India Company that India would inevitably have been taken over by some foreign Empire or other , perhaps not a surprising view for someone who grew up in the Empire but possibly historically not a very helpful perspective in trying to understand what was going on

Later in the British Raj period he will say 'India thought so and so', leaving aside the granting of consciousness to an abstraction, I wondered "did it?" and how could we know? Bizarrely to my mind after some humming and hawing and referring to one book he claims that the average Indian peasant was probably about as poor as the average European peasant in the early sixteenth century, which is probably too big a claim to be of any use to any one.

On the plus side, and there are big pluses, I felt it was clear that the big advantage that the British and the French had was organisational even hierarchical in that in India both had a presence as trading companies which has relatively clear objectives ( get rich, and at least maintain the possibility of getting rich in the future) the Indian Princes during the period of Mughal decline and disorder were in the opposite situation - sons were disposing father's to gain political control, there was rivalry over the leadership of small states and contenders were prepared to wheel and deal, makes promises and alienate revenues to get a chance to grab power. The French were the first to take advantage of this to put an ally on charge of Mysore. Secondly while everybody had access to European military technology, the Europeans had distinctive miltary organisation and training that allowed them to defeat more numerous opponents.
Spear taught European history in India before Independence, then returned to Britain where he taught Indian history. In places I felt he was channelling views that he had absorbed from the Senior Common Room. It is an entertaining and smoothly written narrative, although I had read it before and from my previous reading I had retained only vague memories of Marathas galloping about.

[Priyanshu Mani · Rating 4 out of 5]

A nice and balanced book, it starts with an account of life in Akbar's Mughal empire and describes events up to independence. In between it discusses different empires within India and British laws and acts in a mostly chronological order. The book, because it is thin, discusses issues in a compact manner, so that some interesting incidents lack the flesh that they deserve. In any case, this book reminded me to read about the Marathas and Shivaji's romantic escape from Aurangzeb's territory.

For the first time, I read about the efforts made by different Englishmen that were actually good for India. At times I felt the book rushed through some parts (like the Jallianwala Bagh incident), and focused on others that might not have been so important for an Indian. However I firmly believe that this bias was not intentional, it was just a different perspective.

As usual I ended up reading Volume 2 of this series first. The Volume 1 covers incidents before this and is written by Romila Thapar.

[George Murray · Rating 4 out of 5]

A step down from Romila Thapar’s first volume, but still a clear and concise introduction to Indian history. I’m developing a soft spot for the popular histories of the mid-20th centuries- newer books are generally better written but theres a degree of non-ideological, scientific reporting here that has become quite rare.

[Bill]

Excellent book on the history of India. The Indian lady who recommended it said that it was a classic and a standard on Indian history.

[Milpool · Rating 3 out of 5]

A lucid and readable survey of the Mughal period up to Nehru. Spear highlights political/cultural touchstones from the reign of Babur to Shah Alam; Clive/Hastings/Cornwallis; power struggles between Benthamites, evangelicals, and liberals at the turn of the 19th century; consolidation of Company rule between ca. 1830 and 1857; Crown rule after the Rebellion and the turn to censorship, military violence, and repression by the administrative class; Gokhale and Tilak; Gandhi; Nehru. Very little on Ambedkar, however, with Adivasi and Dalit struggles ignored pretty much completely. A useful reference overall, and Spear writes nicely.

[Jade · Rating 3 out of 5]

A good read - I preferred volume one purely as I prefer earlier periods of history. It would have been good to see some expansion on some topics, i.e. the Bengal famine, but I understand this is an all encompassing history so the author has to keep it brief. I also think the analysis on some of these topics will have changed in more recent times.

[Shaun Chattey]

Good book on india!

[Bijo Philip · Rating 4 out of 5]

More popular kind of presentation; surprised to find Romila Thaper associataed with this venture

good source of actual history and flowing. Recommended

[Nadia · Rating 4 out of 5]

anyone give me the summary of supremacy,why and wherefore....a history of englanf,1983...........

[Sumit]

x

[WRH · Rating 2 out of 5]

Written in trugid British prose. Almost unreadable

[P Pajouhesh]

امتياز: صفر مطلق.

افتضاح. بد‌ترين کتاب تاريخ و شايد بشه گفت بد‌ترين کتاب به صورت عام که خوندم. تاريخ که چه عرض کنم، روايتی نا‌مستند در حد خاطره‌گويی راننده‌تاکسی انگليسی، پيش‌آگاهی‌پندار، زمان‌پريش، نژاد‌پرستانه، جانب‌دارانه، ذات‌گرا، حاکم‌محور و نه حتی حکومت‌محور با نا‌ديده‌گرفتن کامل جامعه و حتی حکومت و تمرکز بر فردِ حاکم انگليسی، بی‌هيچ تحليل عاقلانه‌ای. می‌شه گفت تاريخ قهرمانان هندوی شجاع عليه مسلمانان بيگانه‌ی بد‌جنس از زاويه‌ی ديد استعمارگر ليبرال رمانتيک که بی‌دليل و بدون دونستن ذره‌ای از دين هندو حامی‌شه. تحليلش از چرايی استيلای انگليس بر هند اون‌قدر خنده‌داره و هر چند جمله ادعای قبلی‌اش رو نقض می‌کنه که گفتن نداره. سه نمونه از ياوه‌گويی‌هاش: ايران باعث تمدن زود‌رس هند شد! (ص۵۷) هند مستعمره‌ی بريتانيا شد چون ويکتوريا رابطه با رعايای جديدش رو خيلی جدی می‌گرفت و چنان سحرشون کرد که عاشقش شدند. (ص۲۰۲) هر‌چه تعداد مسلمانان کم‌تر بهتر. (ص۳۵۳).

حتی نمايه‌اش هم به درد لای جرز می‌خوره. جدا از همون مشکل جلد قبلی که اونو بدل کرده به فهرست غلط‌های نگارشی و چاپی‌ش، شماره‌صفحه‌هاش هم بی‌معنی‌ان: بنا به نمايه تنها يک بار نام ايران تو کتاب اومده اونم صفحه‌ی ۲ که البته جدا از اين که چنين نيست و کتاب پُر از ذکر ايرانه، صفحه‌ی ذکر‌شده نَه متنِ کتاب، بلکه صفحه‌ی فيپاست که اون‌جا هم نامی از ايران نيومده.

از صفحه‌ی ۱۲ که می‌شه صفحه‌ی دوم متن اصلی کتاب فهميدم جفنگه و به درد لای جرز هم نمی‌خوره ولی به هر حال خودنم که روايت استعماری از تاريخ هند رو خونده باشم ولی شما چنين نکنين. حتی ويکی‌پديا با همه‌ی معايبش در مقابلش سلطانه. اگه نخريدينش هرگز نخرين. جلد اولش جالبه و خوب و توصيه می‌کنم بخونين ولی اينو هرگز. اگه دارينش هم به کسی ندينش. مثل من بندازين توی سطل زباله. تنها جای سزاوارشه.