Encyclopedia of Ancient and Modern
Hindu Scriptures and Interpretation
Vincent A. Smith on the Sources of Indian History (600 B.C. to the Muhammadan Conquest)
The Sources of Indian History in The Early History of India by Vincent A. Smith
Part 1: Sources of Indian History According to Vincent A. Smith (Part 1): Literary Traditions, Purāṇas, Buddhist & Jain Sources, and the Neglect of Vedic Literature
The reconstruction of the early history of India depends upon the careful examination of a wide range of literary, archaeological, epigraphic, numismatic, and foreign sources. In Vincent Arthur Smith’s celebrated work, The Early History of India: From 600 B.C. to the Muhammadan Conquest (first published 1904, later revised in several editions), he attempted to classify and evaluate the principal authorities available for reconstructing the political history of ancient India from approximately 600 B.C. until the establishment of Muhammadan rule in North India during the closing years of the twelfth century C.E. Smith (3 June 1843 – 6 February 1920) regarded the study of historical sources as the indispensable foundation for understanding India’s past and organized the available evidence into distinct categories according to their historical reliability and chronological usefulness.
Smith divided the sources of Indian history into four principal classes. The first consisted of traditional literature, chiefly preserved in Sanskrit, Pali, and Prakrit works. The second included the writings of foreign travellers, ambassadors, historians, and pilgrims who visited India or collected information regarding the subcontinent. The third comprised the extensive body of archaeological evidence, including monuments, inscriptions, sculptures, architecture, and coins. The fourth category embraced those comparatively rare native historical compositions that described contemporary political events or preserved dynastic traditions. According to Smith, these four groups, when critically compared, enabled historians to reconstruct a connected political narrative despite the absence of continuous indigenous chronicles comparable to those of Greece, Rome, or China.
For the period extending from approximately 600 B.C. to 326 B.C., ending with the invasion of Alexander of Macedon, Smith believed that historians were compelled to depend primarily upon literary tradition because inscriptions, coins, and contemporary historical records were extremely limited. Political events before the Mauryan Empire survived chiefly through scattered notices preserved in religious texts, genealogies, and later compilations rather than in formal historical narratives. Consequently, he argued that the historian must compare different literary traditions and verify them wherever possible through external evidence.
Among indigenous literary materials, Smith attached considerable importance to the Buddhist Canon, particularly the Jātakas, or stories of the previous births of the Buddha. Although these narratives assumed their final literary form centuries after the events they described, Smith maintained that they preserved authentic traditions concerning the political geography and social conditions of northern India during the sixth and fifth centuries B.C. Numerous references to kingdoms such as Kosala, Magadha, Vatsa, Avanti, and Videha, together with descriptions of urban centres including Rājagṛha, Śrāvastī, Kauśāmbī, Vaiśālī, and Benares (Vārāṇasī), furnished valuable evidence for reconstructing the historical landscape immediately preceding the rise of the Maurya Dynasty.
Smith also recognized the historical value of Jain literature, although he acknowledged that much of it remained insufficiently studied during his lifetime. Jain canonical texts preserved traditions concerning the lives of the Tīrthaṅkaras, the expansion of Jain communities, and several important dynasties of ancient India. References to rulers such as Bimbisāra (c. 544–492 B.C.) and Ajātaśatru (c. 492–460 B.C.) frequently corresponded with Buddhist accounts and therefore assisted historians in establishing relative chronology.
Another important literary source identified by Smith consisted of the Pali chronicles of Sri Lanka, especially the Dīpavaṃsa (probably compiled during the fourth century A.D.) and the Mahāvaṃsa (compiled during the fifth century A.D.). These chronicles narrated the transmission of Buddhism from India to Sri Lanka during the reign of Emperor Aśoka (c. 268–232 B.C.) and preserved traditions relating to the Maurya Dynasty. Smith accepted these works as valuable historical authorities but repeatedly emphasized that they required careful criticism because ecclesiastical traditions often incorporated legendary material and chronological inconsistencies.
Among Sanskrit works, Smith devoted particular attention to the Purāṇas. Of the traditional eighteen Purāṇas, he regarded the Vāyu Purāṇa, Matsya Purāṇa, Viṣṇu Purāṇa, Brahmāṇḍa Purāṇa, and Bhāgavata Purāṇa as especially significant because they preserved dynastic genealogies extending from mythical antiquity to historical kingdoms. Although earlier European scholars had dismissed the Purāṇic king-lists as legendary fabrications, Smith argued that closer examination revealed substantial historical traditions embedded within them. He considered these dynastic lists indispensable for reconstructing the succession of the Śiśunāga, Nanda, Maurya, Śuṅga, Kāṇva, and Āndhra (Sātavāhana) dynasties. While recognizing the presence of mythical elements, he believed that critical comparison among different Purāṇic recensions enabled historians to recover genuine historical information.
Smith likewise referred to Kalhaṇa’s Rājataraṅgiṇī, composed in Kashmir during the twelfth century A.D. Although considerably later than the events narrated in its earliest books, he described it as the nearest approach within Sanskrit literature to a continuous historical chronicle. The work preserved traditions concerning the rulers of Kashmir while providing increasingly reliable information for the centuries immediately preceding Kalhaṇa’s own lifetime. Smith considered it indispensable for the political history of north-western India.
Despite acknowledging such diverse literary traditions, Smith paid remarkably little attention to the Vedas and associated Vedic literature as historical sources. His discussion of indigenous tradition concentrated on the Purāṇas, Buddhist Canon, Jain texts, epics, and later chronicles, yet virtually ignored the Ṛgveda, Yajurveda, Sāmaveda, Atharvaveda, together with the Brāhmaṇas, Āraṇyakas, and Upaniṣads. This omission represents one of the principal limitations of his treatment of Indian historical sources. Modern historians generally recognize that although the Vedic corpus is primarily religious and ritualistic, it also preserves invaluable evidence concerning the political organization, tribal structure, geography, social institutions, economic life, and religious development of early Indo-Aryan society between approximately 1500 B.C. and 600 B.C. References to tribes such as the Bharatas, Purus, Yadus, Anus, and Druhyus, the celebrated Battle of the Ten Kings (Daśarājña) fought on the banks of the River Paruṣṇī (Ravi), and descriptions of the Sapta Sindhu region constitute historical evidence of considerable importance. Yet Smith neither incorporated these materials into his classification nor evaluated their historical significance.
His emphasis upon the Purāṇas while overlooking the Vedas reflects a major weakness of his methodology. Since the Vedic texts are substantially earlier than the Purāṇas and preserve traditions belonging to the formative period of Indian civilization, their exclusion created an incomplete picture of India’s earliest historical development. Later historians have regarded this omission as a significant limitation of colonial historiography by a British civil servant. It suggests that Smith underestimated the historical value of Vedic literature and consequently relied more heavily upon later religious compilations than upon India’s oldest surviving textual tradition. ( See Rig Veda (ऋग्वेदः) Shakala Samhita)
Part 2: Sources of Indian History According to Vincent A. Smith (Part 2): Greek, Persian, Chinese, and Foreign Accounts in Early Indian History
Foreign testimony occupied a position of exceptional importance in Vincent Smith’s reconstruction of ancient Indian history because he believed that external observers often supplied independent evidence capable of verifying or correcting indigenous traditions. From the sixth century B.C. onwards, the expansion of the Achaemenid Persian Empire, followed by the campaigns of Alexander, the King of Macedonia, brought India into closer contact with the political world of Western Asia and the Mediterranean. The writings of Persian officials, Greek historians, Roman geographers, Chinese pilgrims, and later Muslim scholars provided chronological anchors which Smith regarded as indispensable for reconstructing the political history of ancient India.
The earliest foreign references to India were found in the inscriptions of King Darius I (Darius Hystaspes) of the Achaemenid Empire, who ruled between 522 B.C. and 486 B.C. Inscriptions discovered at Persepolis and Naqsh-i-Rustam in modern Iran, particularly those dating to approximately 486 B.C., mention Hindush (India) as one of the eastern provinces incorporated within the Persian Empire. Smith considered these inscriptions among the earliest authentic historical records referring to India because they established beyond doubt that the north-western frontier, especially regions corresponding to modern Sindh and parts of the Punjab, had become integrated into the imperial administration of Persia during the reign of Darius. These royal inscriptions, unlike legendary traditions, represented contemporary governmental documents and therefore possessed exceptional historical authority.
Complementing the Persian inscriptions were the writings of the Greek historian Herodotus (c. 484–425 B.C.), often described as the “Father of History.” Writing during the late fifth century B.C., Herodotus described the peoples inhabiting the eastern frontiers of the Persian Empire, their customs, military service, taxation, and economic resources. Smith acknowledged that Herodotus occasionally repeated travellers’ tales and exaggerated stories, yet he believed that his descriptions of India’s relationship with Persia, especially regarding tribute, administration, and military recruitment, possessed considerable historical value because they supplemented the official Persian inscriptions.
Another Greek writer noticed by Smith was Ctesias of Cnidus, physician to Artaxerxes II Mnemon around 401 B.C. Ctesias composed a work entitled Indica, describing India and its marvels. Smith, however, regarded Ctesias as an unreliable authority because his narrative abounded in fabulous creatures, imaginary races, and fantastic geographical descriptions derived largely from travellers’ gossip rather than direct observation. Consequently, Smith considered his work useful only as evidence of contemporary Greek curiosity regarding India rather than as dependable historical testimony.
A decisive transformation in historical knowledge occurred following the invasion of Alexander in 327–325 B.C. Alexander crossed the Hindu Kush, advanced through Gandhāra, captured Taxila (Takṣaśilā) under King Ambhi, defeated King Porus (Puru) on the banks of the Hydaspes (Jhelum River) in 326 B.C., and reached the Hyphasis (Beas River) before his army refused to proceed farther east. Smith regarded Alexander’s campaign as a major chronological landmark because it linked Indian history securely with the well-established chronology of the Hellenistic world. It is to be remembered that there exists no credible history that Alexander ever crossed the border of modern-day Iran and came near to the Sindhu River. Arrian of Nicomedia`s The Anabasis of Alexander, written in the 2nd century CE, is not reliable.
The officers accompanying Alexander produced detailed descriptions of the geography, political organization, flora, fauna, and peoples of north-western India. Although many original works disappeared, substantial portions survived through later Greek and Roman authors. Among these, Smith regarded Arrian, writing during the second century A.D., as the most reliable authority. Arrian’s Anabasis of Alexander and Indica, based largely upon the accounts of Ptolemy, Nearchus, and Aristobulus, furnished accurate information concerning Alexander’s campaigns, Indian kingdoms, river systems, military organization, and administrative institutions. Smith considered Arrian’s critical approach superior to that of later classical writers because he carefully distinguished credible testimony from popular legend.
Equally important was Megasthenes, ambassador of Seleucus I Nicator to the court of Chandragupta Maurya at Pāṭaliputra (modern Patna) around 302–298 B.C. His work, also entitled Indica, no longer survives in complete form but substantial fragments were preserved by authors such as Strabo, Arrian, Diodorus, and Pliny. Smith attached enormous importance to Megasthenes because he was an eyewitness of the Mauryan Empire during its formative period. His descriptions of the fortified capital at Pāṭaliputra, the administrative machinery, municipal organization, army, agriculture, taxation, and social divisions constituted invaluable contemporary evidence for the reign of Chandragupta Maurya (c. 321–297 B.C.).
Smith further employed the writings of later classical authors, including Strabo, Pliny the Elder, Ptolemy, Diodorus Siculus, and Quintus Curtius Rufus. Although these authors frequently depended upon earlier authorities, their compilations preserved fragments of otherwise lost historical works. Together, they contributed information concerning trade routes connecting India, Egypt, and the Roman Empire, the export of spices, pearls, ivory, textiles, and precious stones, and the commercial importance of western ports such as Bharuch (Barygaza) on the Gulf of Khambhat.
Chinese historical writings occupied another distinguished position in Smith’s classification. He emphasized that Chinese historians maintained a remarkably accurate chronological system, thereby providing dates often lacking in Indian tradition. The earliest important historian was Sima Qian (Ssu-ma Ch’ien), who completed his monumental historical work around 100 B.C. Thereafter, an uninterrupted succession of official Chinese dynastic histories preserved references to diplomatic relations, Buddhist missions, trade, and political developments within India.
The first great Chinese pilgrim discussed by Smith was Faxian (Fa-hien), who travelled across India between A.D. 399 and 414 during the reign of Chandragupta II Vikramāditya (c. A.D. 380–415) of the Gupta Empire. Beginning his journey from Chang’an, Faxian crossed Central Asia, entered India through Gandhāra, visited Mathurā, Pāṭaliputra, Kapilavastu, Bodh Gayā, Sārnāth, and numerous Buddhist monasteries before returning through Sri Lanka and Southeast Asia. Smith regarded Faxian’s observations as exceptionally valuable because they described the political stability, prosperity, judicial system, charitable institutions, and flourishing Buddhist establishments under Gupta rule.
Even more significant was the celebrated Chinese monk Xuanzang (Hiuen Tsang), whose extensive travels between A.D. 629 and 645 covered nearly the entire Indian subcontinent during the reign of Harṣavardhana (A.D. 606–647). Xuanzang visited important centres including Nālandā, Kanauj, Prayāga, Kāśī, Kāñcīpuram, Mathurā, Kashmir, Multan, and Assam, recording detailed descriptions of political administration, educational institutions, religious conditions, geography, agriculture, trade, and local traditions. Smith described Xuanzang’s work as a veritable treasure-house of information because it preserved countless details concerning seventh-century India while also recording earlier historical traditions that might otherwise have disappeared.
Smith argued that the combined testimony of Persian inscriptions, Greek historians, Chinese pilgrims, and Roman geographical writers transformed the study of Indian history by providing independent chronological evidence capable of verifying indigenous traditions. Through these external witnesses, historians were able to establish synchronisms between Indian rulers and foreign monarchs, particularly linking Chandragupta Maurya with Seleucus I Nicator, and Emperor Aśoka with the Hellenistic rulers Antiochus II Theos, Ptolemy II Philadelphus, Antigonus Gonatas, Magas of Cyrene, and Alexander of Epirus. These synchronisms became the chronological framework upon which Smith constructed much of his narrative of early Indian political history.
Nevertheless, Smith’s extensive appreciation of foreign testimony stood in marked contrast to his treatment of India’s earliest indigenous textual tradition. While he carefully analysed Greek, Persian, Chinese, and later Muslim records, he did not subject the Vedas, Brāhmaṇas, Āraṇyakas, or Upaniṣads to an equivalent historical examination. Consequently, his discussion created an imbalance in which foreign observations and later Sanskrit compilations received fuller historical treatment than the earliest surviving corpus of Indian literature.
Part 3: Sources of Indian History According to Vincent A. Smith – Archaeology, Epigraphy, Numismatics, Chronology, and a Critical Evaluation
Among all the categories of evidence discussed by Vincent Arthur Smith, archaeological sources occupied an increasingly significant position because they furnished direct and tangible testimony independent of literary traditions. During the late nineteenth century and the opening decades of the twentieth century, archaeological exploration transformed the study of ancient India. Smith himself belonged to the generation of historians who benefited enormously from the discoveries of inscriptions, sculptures, coins, temples, stupas, caves, and ancient cities excavated across the subcontinent. Unlike legendary narratives preserved in literature, archaeological remains constituted physical evidence capable of verifying political events, royal genealogies, religious developments, administrative institutions, and chronological sequences. Consequently, Smith regarded archaeology as one of the most reliable foundations upon which the history of India could be reconstructed.
Smith divided archaeological evidence into three principal branches: monumental remains, epigraphy (inscriptions), and numismatics (coins). Each branch contributed distinct forms of historical information. Monuments revealed artistic styles, architectural evolution, religious patronage, and imperial power. Inscriptions supplied names, dates, genealogies, royal proclamations, land grants, victories, and administrative records. Coins established dynastic succession, territorial expansion, political sovereignty, trade relations, religious symbolism, and chronological order.
The monumental remains of ancient India demonstrated the political and cultural achievements of successive dynasties. Smith referred to numerous monuments distributed throughout the Indian subcontinent, including the Buddhist Stupas of Sanchi in present-day Madhya Pradesh, the sculptured gateways of Bharhut, the rock-cut caves of Ajanta, Ellora, Karle, Bhaja, and Nasik in Maharashtra, the magnificent Sarnath remains near Varanasi, the temples of Bhubaneswar in Odisha, and the architectural complexes of Khajuraho in Madhya Pradesh. These monuments reflected changing patterns of religious patronage under the Mauryas, Shungas, Satavahanas, Kushanas, Guptas, Pallavas, Chalukyas, Rashtrakutas, Palas, Pratiharas, Cholas, and many other dynasties extending across nearly fifteen centuries.
Although monuments themselves rarely narrated political events, Smith observed that their artistic styles and construction techniques enabled historians to determine relative chronology and identify periods of prosperity. The systematic excavation of ancient settlements further revealed successive occupational layers, permitting archaeologists to reconstruct the gradual evolution of civilization. Such archaeological stratification, though still in its infancy during Smith’s lifetime, promised increasingly accurate chronological conclusions.
Even more valuable than monuments were inscriptions, which Smith regarded as the single richest source for reconstructing early Indian political history. The science of epigraphy revolutionized Indian historiography during the nineteenth century through the efforts of scholars such as James Prinsep, who successfully deciphered the Brāhmī and Kharoṣṭhī scripts in 1837. Before Prinsep’s achievement, many inscriptions remained unintelligible. Once deciphered, however, they revealed an immense body of historical information extending from the third century B.C. onward.
Foremost among all inscriptions were the Edicts of Emperor Aśoka, engraved between approximately 260 B.C. and 232 B.C. upon rocks and stone pillars distributed throughout the Mauryan Empire. Major Rock Edicts have been discovered at Girnar (Gujarat), Shahbazgarhi (Pakistan), Mansehra (Pakistan), Kalsi (Uttarakhand), Dhauli (Odisha), Jaugada (Odisha), Erragudi (Andhra Pradesh), and several other locations. Pillar Edicts survive at Sarnath, Allahabad (Prayagraj), Lauriya Nandangarh, Lauriya Araraj, Rampurva, Sanchi, and Delhi.
Smith considered these inscriptions unique because they constituted authentic state documents issued directly by the sovereign himself. Unlike later chronicles, they were contemporary records proclaiming imperial policy, moral instruction, administrative reforms, religious tolerance, welfare measures, and diplomatic relations. Particularly significant was Major Rock Edict XIII, which described the devastating Kalinga War fought around 261 B.C. and recorded Aśoka’s subsequent embrace of Dhamma. This inscription also mentioned several contemporary Hellenistic rulers, thereby establishing one of the most secure chronological synchronisms in ancient Indian history.
Besides Aśoka’s inscriptions, Smith emphasized the importance of numerous later epigraphic records. The celebrated Allahabad Pillar Inscription, composed by Harisena, glorified the military achievements of Samudragupta (c. A.D. 335–375) and listed the kingdoms conquered, annexed, or reduced to tributary status across northern and southern India. Similarly, the Junagadh Inscription of Rudradaman I (c. A.D. 150) recorded the restoration of the Sudarshana Lake in Gujarat and represented one of the earliest extensive inscriptions composed in elegant Classical Sanskrit.
Land grants engraved upon copper plates also formed an important category of epigraphic evidence. Thousands of copper-plate charters issued by rulers of the Guptas, Vakatakas, Pallavas, Chalukyas, Rashtrakutas, Palas, Cholas, and many regional kingdoms preserved invaluable information concerning royal genealogy, administrative divisions, taxation, agrarian economy, village organization, religious endowments, and Brahmanical settlements. Because these grants were usually recorded with precise dates according to contemporary eras, they greatly assisted chronological reconstruction.
Closely connected with epigraphy was the study of ancient coins, or numismatics, which Smith considered indispensable for political history. Coins frequently survived where literary evidence was entirely absent. Dynasties such as the Indo-Greeks, Indo-Scythians (Śakas), Indo-Parthians, and many Kushan rulers became known almost entirely through their coinage. Coins preserved royal names, portraits, titles, religious symbols, minting techniques, economic conditions, and territorial expansion.
The abundant coinage of rulers such as Demetrius, Menander (Milinda), Apollodotus, Antialcidas, Kanishka, Huvishka, Vasudeva I, Chandragupta I, Samudragupta, Chandragupta II, and Kumaragupta enabled historians to establish dynastic succession with remarkable precision. The beautiful Gupta gold coins, issued from the fourth to the sixth century A.D., portrayed kings performing horse sacrifices, playing the vina, hunting lions, or standing beside goddess Lakshmi, thereby illuminating imperial ideology and artistic achievement.
Smith also emphasized that chronology constituted the framework upon which all historical writing depended. Without reliable dates, he argued, political history degenerated into disconnected legend. Indian chronology presented formidable difficulties because numerous regional eras were simultaneously employed, including the Vikrama Era (57 B.C.), Śaka Era (A.D. 78), Gupta Era (A.D. 319–320), Kalachuri Era, Harsha Era, and several local systems. Considerable scholarly labour was required before these chronological systems could be correlated accurately with the Common Era.
Among the decisive chronological achievements acknowledged by Smith was the identification of Chandragupta Maurya with the Greek ruler Sandrokottos, mentioned by classical authors. This synchronism connected Indian chronology securely with the established chronology of the Seleucid Empire, fixing the accession of Chandragupta around 321 B.C. A second major chronological landmark emerged through Aśoka’s inscriptions referring to contemporary Hellenistic monarchs. Finally, the determination of the Gupta Era beginning in A.D. 319–320, achieved principally through the research of J. F. Fleet, enabled historians to arrange the political history of the Gupta Empire with far greater certainty.
Smith concluded that the cumulative evidence of inscriptions, coins, monuments, literary traditions, and foreign testimony justified the writing of a continuous political history of India extending from approximately 600 B.C. to the Muhammadan conquest under Muḥammad Ghori, whose victory over Prithviraj Chauhan III at the Second Battle of Tarain (1192 A.D.) paved the way for the establishment of the Delhi Sultanate in 1206 A.D. He believed that the combined efforts of archaeologists, philologists, epigraphists, and numismatists had transformed what had once appeared an obscure past into an increasingly coherent historical narrative.
Now, Smith’s treatment of the sources of Indian history cannot be accepted without critical examination. His classification undoubtedly represented a major contribution to Indian historiography from the European invaders’ standpoint because it systematically organized the available evidence (to the European library) and emphasized the importance of epigraphy, numismatics, and foreign accounts at a time when these disciplines were still developing. His insistence upon corroborating literary traditions with inscriptions and coins established sound historical methodology that continues to influence modern scholarship.
However, his approach also reflected important limitations characteristic of colonial historiography. The most striking omission or ignorance remains his failure to discuss the Vedas (4500 – 600 BCE) and the broader corpus of Vedic literature as historical sources. While the Vedic corpus is primarily civilizational rather than chronological history or religious. Consequently, his treatment presents an incomplete account of the documentary foundations of ancient Indian civilization. A comprehensive study of the sources of Indian history, therefore, requires not only the literary, archaeological, epigraphic, numismatic, and foreign materials emphasized by Vincent Smith but also the systematic inclusion of the Vedas and Vedic literature, without which the historical origins of Indian civilization cannot be fully understood.
You’re right. I shifted it from a strong interpretive critique to a more neutral academic one. If your article is intended as a historiographical critique, then the criticism should remain. Here’s a rewrite that preserves your meaning while improving the language and flow without changing your argument.
Again, one may ask for whom Vincent Smith was writing the history of India, and what was the purpose behind his work? Smith was a British civil servant writing during the height of the British Empire in India. He was fully aware that Britain had conquered and colonized India primarily to secure raw materials, expand trade, and strengthen its own industrial and imperial civilization in Europe. His historical writing cannot be divorced from this colonial background.
Consequently, Smith tended to portray India primarily as a geographical territory repeatedly entered and ruled by successive foreign powers. His narrative begins with the campaigns of Alexander, proceeds through the Muhammadan invasions, and culminates in the arrival of the European trading companies and ultimately British rule. This framework presents India as a land of successive conquests rather than as an ancient civilization possessing its own enduring cultural and historical continuity.
Smith appears to have been more interested in India as a territory than in the Indian people as the bearers of a continuous civilization. He showed little inclination to confront the fundamental historical question: Who are the Indians? The Greeks who accompanied Alexander did not become the Indian nation. Likewise, the Muslim conquerors established powerful states, but they did not, by themselves, constitute the Indian nation. The same may be said of the European colonizers. Yet Smith largely avoided examining the civilizational continuity that existed before, during, and after these political changes.
For Smith, Indian history was essentially a history of administrations, dynasties, and conquests, rather than the history of an ancient and continuing civilization rooted in indigenous traditions. His neglect of the Vedas and the broader corpus of Vedic literature, while according considerable importance to the Purāṇas, foreign accounts, inscriptions, and coins, reinforces this tendency. The omission suggests either a failure to appreciate the historical significance of Vedic sources or an unwillingness to engage seriously with them as foundational documents of Indian civilization.
Seen in this light, Smith’s historical project reflects the broader assumptions of colonial historiography. His narrative appears to leave room for British rule as the latest phase in a long succession of foreign dominations over India, rather than presenting it as an interruption in the history of a continuous indigenous civilization. It is therefore plausible to argue that Smith wrote with an underlying expectation of the continuation of British rule in India and, consciously or otherwise, viewed the spread of British institutions and Christian civilizational ideals as part of the historical trajectory of the subcontinent. Whether or not this was his explicit intention, the structure and emphasis of his history lend themselves to such an interpretation.
