Moscow: Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2013, 472 p.

You never get tired of being amazed at the productivity of the scientific work of great colleagues. Over the past few years, Leonid Borisovich Alaev has published two new voluminous books of different genres [Alaev, Vigasin, Safronova, 2010; Alaev, 2011], prepared the third edition of a popular textbook on the history of the East [Alaev, 2014], and written several in-depth articles and polemical reviews (see, for example: [Alaev, 2013]). If we take into account that his first scientific monograph was published in 1964, and his first publications date back to 1955,then we can imagine the length of his path. For almost 60 years of his creative life, L. B. Alaev published two dozen books and hundreds of articles on key problems of the history of India and Eastern countries, making a very significant contribution to historical science.

It is characteristic that the reviewed monograph does not sum up the results, but opens up new opportunities for the author and readers. Although almost a quarter of a century has passed since the collapse of the USSR and the deep crisis of Marxist-Leninist ideology, a new comprehensive theory of historical analysis and a scientific and historical worldview has not appeared in our science. At the same time, it was not able to successfully "join" the mainstream of world historical science. At the same time, it is unclear whether there is an objective need to create a different, non-Soviet paradigm of theoretical historical knowledge, as well as whether foreign science deserves attempts to join its main areas. In other words, isn't world science in the same unenviable position as the domestic, post-Soviet one, being in a state of postmodern "relaxation"?

I must say that the author of the book under review does not raise such questions anywhere, but after reading it, you ask them because of L. B. Alaev's focus on theory, his generally negative attitude to the foundations of Marxist, including Soviet, historiography [Theory..., 2014], and his criticism of both the main and side issues branches on the tree of studying history from a class perspective, not only here, but also abroad, especially in India. It is significant that other approaches to the theoretical understanding of history, in particular civilizational, are also not liked by the author of Historiography, although in it he does not severely criticize it, limiting himself to stating the narrow possibilities of such a methodology (pp. 429-430).

Despite the ambiguous perception of a number of Alaev's judgments and assessments, one cannot but feel pleasure from the harmony and clarity of the author's presentation of his views and starting points. This is facilitated by the very style of writing, recognizably "Alaevsky". (It is noteworthy that the work published in the author's editorial office has a minimal number of typos and blemishes. ¹) I recall the impression that L. B. Alaev's book "This is How I Saw India" (1971), which was popular not only among specialists and orientalists, but also useful for understanding the political situation in the country). Despite the general positive assessment of what he saw in India at that time, the author managed to convey his critical, and sometimes slightly ironic, attitude to some aspects of its social and political realities (Alaev, 1971).

¹ The author did not manage to do without them at all. So, in approx. On p. 111, the reference is apparently to an Indian rather than a Hindu civilization; the name of the English historian Hardy is transliterated as both Hardy (p. 18) and Hardy (p.111).

This well-known distancing from the Indian, combined with an active rejection of the traditionalist nationalist spirit, which is very strong in India, is reflected in the pages of this special monograph, written 40 years later. Again, it is not a question of criticizing everything that has been written and done by Indian scholars, but of not accepting the extremely odious manifestations of nationalism in Indian historical scholarship.

The work structure is simple and logical. The author examines the evolution over time of three historiographical schools: the British one, which considers that it was within its framework that the true historiography of Indian history began to take shape; the Indian one, which was born and developed for a long time in the "cocoon" of the colonial approach; and the Soviet one, which was based on Marxist methods of analysis. The first chapter is devoted to the study of the history of India in the 19th century. The second chapter examines the historiography between the world Wars of the 20th century. The third, perhaps the most interesting, tells about Soviet historiography after the end of World War II. The fourth chapter is devoted to the main areas of historical science in independent India and Pakistan. The last chapter deals with post-Soviet historiography and the study of India in Western countries, including Japan. In addition, Alaev touches upon an important question about the fate of history in modern India. He does not consider works on ancient Indian history, trying to remain, as he notes, "within the limits of his competence" and referring to the historiographical work of A. A. Vigasin [Vigasin, 2002].

Here we should mention one more feature of the author's approach. The book is written in the biographical and historiographical genre, as a history not only of ideas, but also of people.² Describing the contribution of a prominent specialist to science, the author gives a brief biographical reference about him. Sometimes these data are read with great interest and largely explain the direction of scientific research, ideological and theoretical views, the nature of the results obtained, sometimes (especially when it comes to Indian scientists of the second half of the XX century) they are somewhat formal in nature.

Turning to the content side of the book, you can not do without some important quotes for understanding the author's position. First of all, this concerns the subject of the work itself. Approaching history as a science, L. B. Alaev notes that the change of approaches in it is not always based on objective factors, such as the accumulation of new facts and data, forcing to change the angle of view and concepts (paradigms), because a large role is played by "social order", political and ideological factors. "History," he says, " is not an exact science. It is impossible to prove something here with such a degree of certainty that you can finally part with the opposite opinion. All ideas... they remain alive-despite their denials, and from time to time they are reanimated and rise from the ashes in an "intact" form, when their denials are forgotten" (p.5). In this passage from the introduction to the book, the main thing seems to me to be the implicit division of the subject of history into internal and external aspects. The internal aspect of historical science depends on the accumulation of new facts and discoveries, as well as the novelty in their interpretation; the external aspect of history is influenced by politics and ideology, as well as human emotions that accompany the ideological and political struggle. The author seems to be most interested in the external aspect of history, which is closely connected with life and social practice. At the same time, he values "objectivity" and rational explanations extremely highly, as opposed to irrational, supernatural ones.³

It is precisely these features of colonial British historiography that make L. B. Alaev evaluate it quite highly. At the same time, he identifies several schools among British Indologists: enlightenment thinkers (carriers of Enlightenment ideas), utilitarians, and orientalist romantics (p.16). All of them, the author notes, proceeded from "indisputable superiority"

² This, of course, is not the first experience of combining biographical and historiographical materials. It is enough to point out the book "Studying India in Russia (essays and materials)" by L. A. Vigasin [Vigasin, 2008]. However,in this book, such a combination could not be dispensed with. In Russian indology, however, a strong tradition of combining biographical, historiographical and historical genres has already developed, largely due to the efforts of the same L. B. Alaev.See the book under his editorship "One must live long in Russia". In memory of K. A. Antonova (1910-2007)" ["One must live long in Russia"..., 2010], as well as another collection of articles [Conversation..., 2010].

³ He also sees the nationalistic patriotism that is characteristic of a large part of Indian science as a disadvantage. "Patriotism and science," he notes, complaining about the neglect of the principles of one of the historians critical of the exaltation of national heroes, J. Sarkar, "cannot possibly separate in India" (p.122).

Britain's control of India and disagreed mainly over whether to reform Indian society or keep it intact. This conflict permeates not only the historiographical works of the British, but also their practical activities. The romantic idea of leaving everything as it is was abandoned by the British in the 1830s. At the same time, they laid the foundations of scientific knowledge, created classical indology. Jones) and wrote the first works on the history of India (J. Mill et al.). L. B. Alaev noted an early difference in the interpretation of the "Hindu" ("pre - Muslim") period-dismissive for some authors and respectful for others. An example of the relationship with the plus sign is J. R. Gleig, who claimed that "the Hindus had their own rather developed civilization", which was not inferior to the medieval European one. Hindu civilization declined after the Muslim invasions (p. 26).

The author's attention is drawn not only to the first "classical" works on the history of all India, written mainly in the XIX century, but also to the works of subsequent historiographical periods. He notes the expansion of research topics, the emergence of the historiographic phenomenon of the "Indian rural community", the role of ethnology and field research, the development of archeology and epigraphy. A separate section is devoted to regional studies, where the main attention of the author was drawn to the works of the British on the south of India, Bengal, and Rajasthan, and much less to the works on the north - west of the colony.

Especially unlucky is the Punjabi school of British historiography, which is not even mentioned. Meanwhile, such an informal school has developed, and in close connection with a kind of Punjabi management system [Dungen, 1972]. It was presented, however, not so much by historical works themselves, but by studies on ethnology, castes, communities, and rural economics by S. Thorburn, D. Ibbetson, H. Calvert, M. Darling, and H. Trevaskis, among others. In fact, it is obviously impossible to give a comprehensive picture of the British historiography of all India in a relatively short essay. The author, for example, barely touched on the very acute problem of the Muslim minority in India, both for British administrators and for researchers of that time (often, as he rightly emphasizes, they were the same people). Describing the life and works of W. W. Hunter (p. 60-61), unfortunately, he did not focus on the resonance that this colonial official's work on the deplorable situation of Muslims in India and the need to take measures to improve their condition, not only in Bengal, but also in other parts of the colony, caused in the context of colonial strategy (Hunter, 1876). I repeat that a review of the whole of English historiography would require a much more extensive place. The author's merit is that he highlighted the main stages and directions of its development and emphasized how closely scientific works followed from the practice of colonial policy, reacted to the needs and needs of the British authorities.

A separate section is devoted to the influence of Karl Marx on the interpretation of Indian history. True to his rule of not "hiding" in front of authorities, L. B. Alaev reminds the reader that Marx "was not an Indologist, and his statements on Indian topics are secondary" (p.78). In addition, some of Marx's later widely cited works were articles he wrote in the 1850s for the New York Daily Tribune, an American newspaper. In general, while critically evaluating the interpretation that Karl Marx gave to the Indian community and the entire social system of India as close to primitiveness, L. B. Alaev nevertheless notes the significance that his analysis had for Indian historiography (p. 88). As for Marxist historiography, especially Soviet historiography, with the spread of the Marxist doctrine, "all the observations of Marx and Engels began to be regarded as classical and directive" (p. 96). At the same time, L. B. Alaev highlights the well - known ambivalent approach of the classics of Marxism to colonialism: on the one hand, they saw the "progressive" results of British rule, and on the other, they condemned the merciless methods of colonial rule. In the author's opinion, their evaluations of methods were sometimes "unreasonably harsh" (p. 92). The well-known rigidity of L. B. Alaev himself in relation to the views of K. Marx is explained by his rejection of the point of view of the Indian pre-colonial system as "Asian", corresponding to the "last stage of the primitive formation"⁴.

⁴ " Thus, Marx regarded India as a society of the last stage of primitive formation. At the same time, a peculiar Indian community... it was perceived by him as a typical late primitive form, which should be present in all countries" (p. 85).

I will return to the question of Eastern feudalism and the "Asiatic mode of production", but first I will note an interesting sketch of the development of British, Indian and Soviet historiography between the two World Wars. The full picture of the first two historiographical schools is in fact obviously broader than that presented in the monograph. The analysis of Soviet historiography is more detailed. At that time, of course, it was just beginning, feeding from two sources. On the one hand, it comes from a very developed, as the author notes, indology of tsarist times (the works of S. F. Oldenburg, F. I. Shcherbatsky, A. E. Snesarev, etc.), and on the other hand, from ideologically charged works of authors of the first Soviet generation (M. P. Pavlovich, V. A. Gurko-Knyazhin, etc.). on the fate of the prominent indologist and party ideologist R. A. Ulyanovsk (pp. 161-164). Collected together and expertly dissected facts of his life, as well as the life, views and works of another coryphaeus of Russian indology, I. M. Reisner (pp. 182-187), allow us to more clearly present the origins of Russian Soviet-Marxist historical science. In addition, information about them, as well as about everything that L. writes about.B. Alaev in the book, "placed" in a historical context, not overloaded with details, but sufficient to recreate the spirit of the era. The spirit, however, is very heavy, associated with the tragic fates of repressed Orientalists who labored in the field of Indology.

A more light impression is left by a detailed account of Indologists and indology of the post-war period. Here the author largely relies on his personal experience, personal participation in the creation of the late Soviet historiography of Indian history. However, the initial post-war period (still Stalinist) was marked by conflicts similar to those that existed in the interwar period. The party-political leadership of Oriental studies led to an opportunistic reassessment of the role and significance of Indian leaders (Mahatma Gandhi, J. Nehru), and was accompanied by the misadventures of the same I. M. Reisner5 and a number of other Indologists.

The history of A. M. Dyakov's "repentance" is significant, which L. B. Alaev touches upon in two places in connection with the interpretation in Soviet indology of the first post-war years of the problems of the national liberation movement and the national bourgeoisie (pp. 198 and 214). In 1948, at a time when, as the author notes, "the negative attitude towards the 'bourgeois' movement somewhat weakened, "A. M. Dyakov was able to contribute to the understanding of the national question in India, showed that its history is not limited to national liberation, as well as workers 'and peasants' movements [Dyakov, 1948]. Just since the book was published, the ideological "pendulum" has swung in the other direction, and the work of A.M. Dyakov (along with his articles) has been subjected to "principled" criticism by colleagues-indologists and non-indologists. Therefore, in a very informative new book published four years later (Dyakov, 1952), Dyakov was forced to admit his mistakes, scrupulously listing them in the preface. But this book also appeared at a turning point, and" mistakes " ceased to be such after Stalin's death.

Analyzing the Soviet historiography of the new period, which is genetically related to the science of the previous stage, L. B. Alaev highlights, in addition to the above-mentioned issues of assessing the colonial policy and economic relations of the mother country and the colony, the study of spiritual processes, the political process in independent India, its economic development, as well as the actual historical topics of the study of medieval time, problems of rural communities and land ownership. Of all these, the author is most familiar with historical subjects, especially the problems of rural communities, to the study of which he himself made a great contribution.⁶ It is impossible not to be pleased with the thoroughness and thoroughness with which L. B. Alaev builds a story about the "battles" that were fought between Soviet indologists, the way he embeds these stories in the biographies of people, noting changes or, conversely, the absence of such views and approaches. At the same time, it is precisely in these sections that his historiographical analysis becomes less balanced in some places and contains harsh assessments (pp. 283, 347-348, 266). Basically critical

⁵ However, a significant role in the twists and turns of I. M. Reisner's fate was apparently played by his personal qualities, the desire to "outwit" everyone. Although she is generally sympathetic to him, she wrote about this in the recently published memoirs of K. A. Antonov, which are read with genuine interest ["Russia must live long..", 2010, pp. 71-74]. About her, by the way, as another leading indologist of the post-war period, her principled attitude and "perspicacity" in assessing the level of capitalist relations in the pre-colonial period (see: pp. 250-252, 280, etc.).

⁶ It is probably no coincidence that in early 2014 the URSS publishing house published the 2nd revised and expanded edition of L. B. Alaev's book "Rural Community in Northern India" (the 1st edition was published by Nauka Publishing house in 1981).

L. B. Alaev's approach to the works of his colleagues and friends cannot but inspire respect - too often historiographical reviews in books and dissertations are entirely descriptive and complimentary. But overly strict judgments should probably be taken with caution.

One can generally agree with the author's assessment of trends in Indian historiography in recent decades, but experts will probably note the obvious incompleteness of the corpus of published works that he has attracted for analysis. This is especially true for books and articles of recent decades. It is significant that a small historiography of the works of Pakistani historians does not go beyond the works of authors of the generation of the 1950s and 1960s.

A well-known exception is the analysis of the "subaltern school" (lower ranks) that has been popular since the 1980s. The approaches of this school, as L. B. Alaev notes, came under fire over time, and the influence of the school on Indian historiography as a whole "did not turn out to be strong" (p.389). This conclusion, although it coincides with the estimates in some other works known to me [Rahman, 2012, p. 99], still seems too categorical.

It seems to me that the analysis of the post-Soviet historiography of Indian history has been carried out very carefully and gives a fairly complete, although apparently not exhaustive, idea of the considerable amount of research work done over the past quarter of a century after the collapse of the USSR. The research of indologists, which is conducted not only in Moscow (although the Center for Indian Studies of the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences remains the core of Russian Indology), but also in the regions, in particular in Lipetsk, where a good school of indologists has developed thanks to A.V. Raikov, as well as in the near abroad (Kazakhstan), deepens the understanding of a number of historical phenomena.

In a short review, it is impossible to cover all the subjects covered by the author. I did not touch upon the author's detailed discussion of the level of development of the Indian economy in the pre-colonial period, although this issue plays a key role in the ongoing confrontation of apologetic and revealing tendencies towards colonialism in foreign historiography, especially in Indian historiography, and I did not note the lively sketches associated with the ideological closeness and creative "incompatibility" of Soviet and Indian Marxist historians ⁷. Many other interesting author's assessments and questions considered by him were not mentioned.

Two words about feudalism and the "Asiatic mode of production". The author touches on this topic several times, stating that among indologists, neither during the first discussion about TSA (at the turn of the 1920s-1930s), nor during the second (1960 - early 1970's), in fact, there were no supporters of it. However, among the broader Orientalists, in particular Sinologists, the" Asian " theory found some support. Although L. B. Alaev declares his loyalty to the theory of Eastern feudalism, in some cases he uses the term "Asian society "and characterizes the specific"combination of private and state, natural and commodity principles" for such a society. He also uses the term "Eastern despotism" (pp. 277, 279). All this, perhaps, indicates a convergence in the author's ideas of the concepts of Eastern feudalism and the "Asian mode of production", understood as a rather historically mature (and not close to the final phases of primitiveness) variant of evolution in special Asian conditions. It should be noted that to a considerable extent a similar interpretation - with a preference for the terms "Asian society", "colonial-Asian synthesis", "Asian capitalism" - is found in the works of modern Marxist authors from South Asia.⁸

In conclusion, I would like to emphasize the importance of the book's genre itself. Historiography provides us with clues to how we approach the study of history, and places us in the atmosphere in which "stories"were created. They are not fiction, but they are not devoid of subjectivity. Historical ideas, as modern constructivists say, are "intersubjective", social in the sense that they are shared by a group of people, passing through individual consciousness.

⁷ I can't immediately refrain from giving one "final" quote. Speaking about contacts, sometimes very close and lasting for a long time, between Marxist historians of the two countries, L. B. Alaev writes:: "But effective cooperation between Soviet and Indian Marxists was never established... The Soviet and Indian historical schools were different in their approaches, phraseology, and mentality" (p. 352).

⁸ See my review of the book by the Pakistani Marxist T. Rahman [Belokrenitsky, 2014]. It should be added that some Russian specialists of the "new wave", in particular the linguist and historian A. I. Kogan, developing the approaches of the school of socio-natural history (SEI) of E. S. Kulpin, seek to use elements of the TSA theory to characterize the historical evolution of Kashmir (see: [Kogan, 2011, pp. 114-127]).

It seems to me that L. B. Alaev's book, as well as many other modern historiographical works, makes our knowledge of historical science more profound and voluminous. They carry a scientific charge and allow us to assess the current state of the subject of research, in order to better represent the path that has been passed and to some extent see the prospects for the future. It would be highly desirable for L. B. Alaev's book to open a series of historiographical works on the history of other countries and regions of the East, as well as on special historical specialties of Oriental studies.

LIST OF LITERATURE COURSES

Alaev L. L. Such I saw India. Moscow, 1971.

Alaev L. B. Southern India. Kommunalno-politicheskiy stroi VI XIII vekov [Community-political system of the VI-XIII centuries]. Moscow: IV RAS, 2011.

Alaev L. B. Will the civilizational approach become a scientific method? // East (Oriens). 2013. № 3.

Alaev L. B. Istoriya Vostoka s drevneyshikh vremen do nachala XX veka [History of the East from ancient times to the beginning of the XX century].

Alaev L. B., Vigasin A. A., Safronova AL. Istoriya Indii [History of India], Moscow: Drofa Publ., 2010.

Bslokrsnitsky V. Ya. Rsc. on: T. Rahman. Class Structure in Pakistan / / Vostok (Oriens). 2014. № 1.

"One must live long in Russia..." In memory of K. A. Antonova (1910-2007) / Comp. L. B. Alaev and T. N. Zagorodnikova, Moscow, 2010.

Vigasin A. A. Istoriografiya istorii Drevnoi Indii [Historiography of the History of Ancient India].

Vigasin A. A. Izuchenie Indii v Rossii (ocherki i materialy) [Studying India in Russia (essays and materials)]. Moscow: ISAA MSU, 2008.

Dyakov A.M. The National Question and English Imperialism in India, Moscow, 1948.

Dyakov A.M. India during and after the end of the Second World War, Moscow, 1952.

Kogan A. I. Transformation of culture and technology of the main economic process in the Kashmir valley in the VIII-XIX centuries. 2011. № 1.

Conversation with Marina and Oleg Pleshov: political symbols and Realities of South Asia / Ed. by E. Yu. Vanin, S. K. Sidorov, A.V. Ustsnko. Moscow, 2010.

Theories and methodology of history. Volgograd: Uchitel Publ., 2014.

Dungcn van dcr Р.Н.М. The Punjab Tradition. L., 1972.

Hunter W.W. The Indian Musulmans. 3^rd Ed. L., 1876.

Rahman T. The Class Structure of Pakistan. Karachi, 2012.

Permanent link to this publication: