Defining Itihāsa: Correcting Common Mischaracterizations
NOTE TO READER: All references are provided through hotlinks identifiable by underlined words and phrases in the main body of the text. The hotlink opens the relevant page of the citation.
There is a peculiar violence in translation. When a word from one civilization is dropped into the vocabulary of another, it rarely arrives unaccompanied — it drags the assumptions of its new home along with it, and those assumptions quietly begin to govern how the word is read. Along with many other indic terms, this is what happened to itihāsa (इतिहास). Translated as “history,” it was made to answer to the standards of Ranke and the archive. Translated as “myth” or “mythology,” it was made to answer to Frazer and the comparative anthropologist’s suspicion of any claim to divine agency in a factual narrative. Neither translation was chosen by the tradition itself. Both were imposed on it, in the same colonial encounter that renamed a civilization “Hinduism” and a subcontinent “India.”
The Upanishadic sages had a method for approaching a reality too vast and too particular to be captured by any single positive predicate: neti neti — not this, not this. Not because the reality is empty, but because every finite category offered to describe it turns out to be too limiting. Perhaps itihāsa deserves the same method, if nothing else, just to shake off its mischaracterizations. With this approach, we do not arrive at what it is by adding another translation to the pile. We arrive at it by removing, one at a time, the categories that do not fit — until what remains is close enough to see clearly, even if no single English word will ever hold it.
Is इतिहास = History?
History, in its modern Western sense, is a discipline built on a particular epistemic humility: the historian does not claim access to what actually happened, only to what the surviving evidence permits us to reconstruct, always provisionally, always subject to revision by the next archive that surfaces. Its authority is evidentiary. Its ambition, atleast on paper, is neutrality (although it often falls seriously short when it comes to Indology, but that is a different matter). Its instrument is the document, and where the document is silent, the historian must be silent too — or admit that he or she is speculating.
Itihāsa makes no such claim to neutrality, and it does not apologize for this. Its very name — iti ha āsa, “thus indeed it was” — is not a hedge but an assertion. The word itself, as fixed in the Amarakośa (1.6.359), is glossed simply: इतिहासः पुरावृत्तम् — itihāsa is pūrvavṛtta, that which truly occurred in the past. There is no equivocation built into the term the way there is in “history,” no methodological caveat. But , and this is the crucial divergence, the truth-claim of itihāsa was never meant to be adjudicated the way a historian adjudicates a claim, through triangulated documentary evidence. It was meant to be received the way a disciple receives a teaching from a guru whose authority does not rest on footnotes.
More importantly, history’s ambition, at least in its stated ideal, is disinterested reconstruction. Itihāsa’s ambition is never disinterested. Kauṭilya, in the Arthaśāstra, does not list itihāsa among the neutral sciences a prince studies to pass an examination. He folds it, deliberately, into the same curriculum as dharmaśāstra and arthaśāstra — law and statecraft. Itihāsa was studied so that the prince would become a certain kind of man — attain Puruśārthas. It is therefore not surprising that Kautiliya also describes itihāsa as Purāṇa , Itivṛtta (history), Ākhyāyika (tale), Udāharaṇa (illustrative story), the Dharmaśāstra and the Arthaśāstra. No historian today would defend the study of history on the grounds that it makes its reader more dharmic. That is not a failure of modern historiography — it is simply a different project, aimed at a different end, answerable to a different tribunal.
Arthasastra of Kautilya states that ‘trayi’ means the three Vedas, viz. Samaveda, Rigveda, Yajurveda and that the Atharvaveda and Itihasaveda are (also) vedas. It follows that in Kautilya’s time Itihasa was a definite work like the three vedas. In another place Kautilya provides ‘a minister proficient in Arthasastras and bent on the good of the king should, by means of itivrtta (history or historical occurrences) and Puranas, admonish (and bring to the right path) a king led astray by other guides,’ In laying down a time-table for the king’s daily routine of work, Kautilya provides that in the latter part of the day the king should listen to Itihasa and defines the latter as comprehending Purāna, itivrita, akhyayika (narrations), udāharaņa (heroic examples), Dharmaśāstra and Arthaśāstra (science of government and statecraft). It appears that Kautilya meant by ‘Itihasa’ a Mahabharata more or less very like the extant one, which describes itself as the best of itihasas, as a Dharmasastra, Arthasastra, Kamasastra and as Karsnaveda. — History of DharmaShastra, P. V. Kane
Is इतिहास = Mythology?
If itihāsa refuses the historian’s neutrality, it just as firmly refuses the mythographer’s skepticism. Myth is no longer the Mythos of Aristotle. Instead, “Myth,” in the register inherited from nineteenth-century comparative religion, carries a quiet condescension: a myth is a story a culture tells itself, often about gods, that is not, and is not meant to be, literally true. It survives because it performs a psychological or social function, not because it records an event. To call the Rāmāyaṇa a myth is to have already decided, before reading a single śloka, that Rāma did not walk the earth, that Ayodhyā and Laṅkā are symbolic geographies rather than real ones, and that the text’s real content is buried beneath its narrative surface, in Jungian archetype or social allegory.
This is precisely what the tradition denies. Maharṣi Vālmīki is not, in the self-understanding of the text, a novelist working with inherited archetypes. He is a witness — or, more properly, a seer who is granted, by Brahmā himself, the power to see (pratyakṣa) the entirety of Rāma’s life as it happened, past and future, before he writes a word of it. The famous origin of the first śloka is instructive here, and it is worth dwelling on because it is often mistaken for a charming literary legend rather than read for what it claims to be doing. Vālmīki, standing at the bank of the Tamasā, watches a niṣāda’s arrow cut down one of a mating pair of krauñca birds. His grief at the sight, spontaneous, uncalculated, falls, without his intending it, into the meter of anuṣṭubh:
मा निषाद प्रतिष्ठां त्वमगमः शाश्वतीः समाः । यत् क्रौञ्चमिथुनादेकम् अवधीः काममोहितम् ॥ (Rāmāyaṇa 1.2.15)
mā niṣāda pratiṣṭhāṁ tvam agamaḥ śāśvatīḥ samāḥ | yat krauñca-mithunād ekam avadhīḥ kāma-mohitam ||
“O hunter, may you never attain lasting honor for long years — since you killed one of the krauñca pair while it was deluded by love.”
Brahmā then appears and tells the sage that it was he, Brahmā, who made grief arrange itself as verse, and commands Vālmīki to compose Rāma’s life in this very meter. The point of this frame-story is not aesthetic. It is a claim about epistemic status: the Rāmāyaṇa’s content is real (Rāma’s life, as it actually occurred), and only its form — the metrical, figured shape into which that reality is poured — is the poet’s contribution. Myth, by contrast, has no such distinction to make, because for the mythographer there was never a historical event sitting underneath the story waiting to be given form. Itihāsa insists there was.
The spectacular Ramayana panels at Ellora’s Cave 16 (the Kailash Temple) etched as an eight-row stone narrative on the temple’s southern wall.
Is इतिहास = Purāṇa?
This distinction is not one the West imposed — it is one the tradition itself draws, and has drawn since the Vedic period, when itihāsa and purāṇa are already named as companion but distinct genres. That the tradition draws this line at all is not in question; where exactly it falls, however, was itself a matter of internal exegetical debate. For example, during the famous conversation between Yājñavalkya and Maitreyī in the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad, Yājñavalkya offers a simile to describe how the entire corpus of sacred learning issues, effortlessly and without agency, from Brahman itself. He tells Maitreyī: as from a fire kindled with damp fuel, clouds of smoke spontaneously issue in various directions, so, indeed, has been breathed forth from this great Being that which we have as Ṛgveda, Yajurveda, Sāmaveda, Atharvāṅgirasa, itihāsa, purāṇa, vidyā, the Upaniṣads, ślokas, sūtras, anuvyākhyānas, and vyākhyānas — all these are but the breath of this Being.
Today, the term itihāsa is popularly associated with the Rāmāyaṇa and Mahābhārata. Yet according to Śaṅkara’s Bṛhadāraṇyaka-bhāṣya (2.4.10), itihāsa denotes something else entirely: the dialogue between Urvaśī and Purūravas and so on (Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa XI.5.1) is the Brāhmaṇa passage he has in mind. Purāṇa, in turn, is illustrated by the cosmogonic opening “This universe was in the beginning unmanifest” (Taittirīya Upaniṣad II.6.1). This is, notably, the reverse of the assignment a modern reader might expect from the word’s ordinary connotation of “itihāsa.” That the same Vedic dyad could be carved in more than one direction by classical exegetes is itself evidence against treating itihāsa/purāṇa as a settled, self-evident binary imported wholesale into English — the tradition’s own commentators disagreed about where the seam runs, even as they agreed that a seam exists. What is stable across both accounts is not which label attaches to which content, but that cosmogony as stated by the purāṇas themselves (the domain of the pañcalakṣaṇa — sarga, pratisarga, vaṃśa, manvantara, vaṃśānucarita) and the particular — a named king, a named sage, a specific war, a specific act of grief or valor, located in a place one could, in principle, walk to — are being distinguished as two different kinds of telling, whatever exegete draws the line and wherever he draws it.
The Mahabharata war depicted on the walls of the Kailash Temple at Ellora
This is why the Mahābhārata’s own self-description matters. When the sages at Śaunaka’s twelve-year sacrifice ask Sauti what he has come to tell them, what they ask for is bhāratasyetihāsasya — “the itihāsa of Bhārata” — and the text goes on to describe itself as an itihāsottama, a supreme itihāsa, from which (the Parvasaṃgraha tells us) the very intelligence of poets is born, the way the threefold order of the world arises from the five elements:
इतिहासोत्तमादस्माज्जायन्ते कविबुद्धयः ।
पञ्चभ्य इव भूतेभ्यो लोकसंविधयस्त्रयः ॥ (Mahabharata 1.2.236)
ātmeva veditavyeṣu priyeṣv iva hi jīvitam । itihāsaḥ pradhānārthaḥ śreṣṭhaḥ sarvāgameṣv ayam ॥
“Just as the Self is foremost among all things that ought to be known, and one’s own life is dearest among beloved things, so too this Itihāsa — whose central purpose is paramount — is the most excellent among all sacred teachings, for it leads to the fulfillment of the highest aim: realization of the Supreme Brahman, the Paramātman.”
The same passage goes further, and the direction it goes in is worth pausing on: the purāṇas, it says, depend upon this itihāsa, the way all creatures depend on space for their existence. The text is not claiming both categories for itself — it is claiming itihāsa as its identity and placing purāṇa in a derivative relation to it, a source it feeds rather than a label it shares. The purāṇa gives you the shape of the cosmos. The itihāsa gives you a man — Yudhiṣṭhira, Rāma, Bhīṣma — placed inside that cosmos, and asks you to watch what he does when dharma and adharma stop being abstractions and become a choice he has to make before sundown.
इतिहासपुराणानामुन्मेषं निर्मितं च यत् । भूतं भव्यं भविष्य॑ च त्रिविधं कालसंज्ञितम् ॥ (Mahābhārata 1.1.63)
itihāsapurāṇānām unmeṣaṁ nirmitaṁ ca yat । bhūtaṁ bhavyaṁ bhaviṣyaṁ ca trividhaṁ kālasaṁjñitam ॥
“This (Mahābhārata) has been created as the very unfolding — the opening of the eyes (unmeṣa) — of the Itihāsas and Purāṇas. It encompasses the threefold division of time: what has been, what is, and what is yet to come.”
What Remains
Neti neti does not conclude with a positive definition — that is the entire discipline of the method, and departing from it now would be a kind of intellectual dishonesty. But something does come into focus once history, myth, and purāṇa have each been parsed.
What remains is a narrative that insists on its own facticity, concerning a particular person of extraordinary stature, rendered not in the historian’s flat prose but in Chandas — meter that is itself believed to have entered human speech through Vālmīki’s grief, not through convention — and shaped throughout by figuration: metaphor, analogy, the entire apparatus of alaṅkāra, deployed not for ornament but because unadorned fact does not, by itself, move a human being to act rightly. That movement is the point. Itihāsa exists to produce Rasa — to make the listener feel, in the body, the weight of Bhīṣma’s vow or Sītā’s exile — because the tradition understood something that a purely evidentiary discipline like history has no mechanism for: that a person is far more likely to walk the difficult path of dharma after weeping for Rāma than after reading a verified chronology of a Kosalan prince.
This is why itihāsa cannot be retired into the museum case of “ancient literature,” any more than it can be filed as primitive science under “mythology.” It was never trying to do what either of those categories does. It was trying to do something harder — to take what actually happened to an extraordinary person, and use every resource of sound, meter, and figure to make sure that what happened does not stay in the past.
इतिहासप्रदीपेन मोहावरणघातिना । लोकगर्भगृहं कृत्स्नं यथावत् सम्प्रकाशितम् ॥ (Mahābhārata 1.1.87)
itihāsapradīpena mohāvaraṇaghātinā । lokagarbhagṛhaṃ kṛtsnaṃ yathāvat samprakāśitam ॥
“By the lamp of sacred history — one that strikes down the veil of delusion — the entire inner chamber of the world, the heart within, is rightly and fully illuminated. Thus the Bhārata, as an itihāsa, dispels ignorance and brings clear understanding to human beings.”
Comments
Post a Comment