9058009437

16 W. R. ANTARKAR

just prcsenlcd, as objcc(ively as I could, salicnl points in thc evidence and arguments pcrtaining to thc prc-Chrisiian dale for Sań. (specifically 509 -477 B.C.) and the post - Christian dale for Sań., ranging from 550 or 600 A.D. to 750 A.D. The tradition is to hołd with some kind of vchemence the First theory, whilc the modern seholars favour thc sccond. Unlcss and until the pivotal dates in aneient Indian history such as the dates of Candra. Maurya., Aśoka and Buddha and Maha., as per thc traditionists, cannot be provcd

i

with morę condusive evidence than has bccn adduced so far, Sań. will conlinue to be assigncd to some datę from 600 A.D. to 750 A.D. Al least works like Dr. Ś. V. of Cit., Pr. Ś. V of Anandajrtana and Śań.Vil. of VSkpati Bhalta must eome to light.

The root of all this eonlrovcrsy seems to lic in the tcndency of the early Western seholars, whom thc Nativc seholars also follow. What, at one limę, was eonsidered to be just an emotional and nalionalistie Outlook on the part of thc traditionists, now seems to have some kernel of trulh. It has bcen shown and is bcing shown with inercasing forec that in the early slagcs of thc study of Indian history, thc Western seholars were aetuated by a slrong desire to bring down thc anliquily of India's past and eonscquently, their approaeh was morę religion-oricnled than aeadcmieally oricnled. Thus, these seholars had bccn taught that the wholc ereation was started in about 4004 B.C. ²⁵ and henee eould not aeecpt that Indian history extends far beyond that limit. Max Muller, wriling to his wife, says that his writing and translalion of thc Vcda is going to have great impaet on the futurę of India. Veda is thc root of the Hindu rcligion and to show how that root is perverted is thc only way of dcslroying their aneient rcligion (1866). In 1868, he writes to thc Duke of Argoil, thc then Indian minister, to the effcct that “this is the timc for Chrislianity to *lcp in. If it docs not, whose fauli will it be ?*'^2<s Lastly, when thc identity of Sandra, and Candra. Maurya was advanced by Jones and was objeeled to by M. Troyer, he says, “We shall see that the evidcnce in favour of the identity of Candra. (of eourse) and Sandra, is sueh as to admit of no rcasonable doubt."²⁷ Whenevcr there is a variely of dates, their tendeney is to aeecpt lowcst i. c., the latcst datę possible. There may be variations in thc computation of time as per the Purfinas, but how injustiee has bccn done to old dynastics (1118 years for 29 kings) has becn indieated already. As said by a vcry great Indologist of India, the new theorics e.g., identity of Sandra, with Gupla Candra. may not have solved all thc problems of India’s past history, bul new problems started by these theorics arc also not solved by thc old presumptions. New rescarch is ehallenging the old theorics like the word ‘Arya* mcaning a race²⁸ and thc Aryąn Invasion theories and pcople havc said that in saying that Arya denoted a race, Max Muller was motivaled politieally ralher than academically.²⁸ It is high time, therefore, that the leading hislorians sil togelher and try an objeetive reappraisal of aneient Indian history. Till then, thc present State of indceision and eontroversy