Bengaluru pays tribute to Kosambi, pioneering historian, public intellectual and scientist Premium

Professor K. Paddayya discusses a book written by British archaeologist and army officer Mortimer Wheeler titled Early India and Pakistan to Ashoka. Two chapters of the book dedicated to prehistory were called “Stones” and “More Stones.” “This is how prehistory was viewed in Indian archaeology till the 1960s, and to some extent, even now,” says the archaeologist and Emeritus Professor of Archaeology at Deccan College, Pune, at a recent talk titled Scientific Study of History and Society, part of a day-long conference held at the National Centre for Biological Sciences focusing on the life, ideas and perspectives of the noted scholar, scientist and historian D.D. Kosambi. 

Professor K. Paddayya discusses a book written by British archaeologist and army officer Mortimer Wheeler titled Early India and Pakistan to Ashoka. Two chapters of the book dedicated to prehistory were called “Stones” and “More Stones.” “This is how prehistory was viewed in Indian archaeology till the 1960s, and to some extent, even now,” says the archaeologist and Emeritus Professor of Archaeology at Deccan College, Pune, at a recent talk titled Scientific Study of History and Society, part of a day-long conference held at the National Centre for Biological Sciences focusing on the life, ideas and perspectives of the noted scholar, scientist and historian D.D. Kosambi. 

Paddayya, who shared the forum with archaeologist Sharada Srinivasan, professor in archaeology and history at the National Institute of Advanced Studies (NIAS), Bengaluru, offers more insights into the study of prehistory.  “Prehistory is regarded as being a very dull subject dealing with the collection of stones… classifying and describing them… giving good photographs,” he says. Kosambi, however, had a very different take on prehistory, as pointed out by Paddayya. “He saw it as being filled with people.”

In a session moderated by Nandita Chaturvedi, Paddayya and Srinivasan offered several intriguing insights into ancient civilisations and societies, ranging from Kosambi’s work and how it has shaped their own,  the importance of prehistory in contemporary times, ideas around living history, and more.  

Paddayya refers to Kosambi as a “great public intellectual” and a “great scientist” who, part-way in his career, also began investigating the history of the country, coming up with “real nuggets” of knowledge. “For these things he is very much remembered even now, though he passed away nearly 60 years ago,” says Paddayya.

The most important thing is that his work on the country’s history was adjunct to his career as a scientist, adds Paddayya, who believes there were three phases in Kosambi’s historical scholarship. “For the first 10-12 years, he was trying to relook ancient Indian texts. He did not take them at face value,” he says. He adopted a scientific way of looking at these texts, influenced by the scientific attitude towards history started by Gopal Bhandarkar in the 1880s. “I think he really imbibed it,” believes Paddayya, going into how Kosambi’s historical scholarship vastly differed from the prevailing ones of his time. “He was looking for an approach which would allow him to capture the people of the past, a professional approach towards Indian history,” he says. 

He also dispells the tendency to dub Kosambi singularly a man of Marxist Indian historical scholarship. “That was true only upto a point,” says Paddayya, adding that while he was a Marxist, he did not like the “extravaganza” of Marxism. “In other words, he was a cobra without fangs. This is important (to note) when we judge him as a Marxist,” he adds.

He delves into the specifics of Kosambi’s pioneering work, referring to his books such as An Introduction to the Study of Indian History and The Culture and Civilisation of Ancient India in Historical Outline as classics with a very secure place in Indian historical scholarship. “He is recognised for his processes, approach rather than a chronological descriptive approach,” says Paddayya, who believes that in adopting this approach he came down heavily on other interpretations (of history). “Nit-picking is there in his writing, and it is this nit-picking that makes him unpopular.”