Introduction: Rewriting History from the Margins

In 2017, the Government of India appointed a committee to review the Indian past over the last 12,000 years. On the surface, this seemed like a commendable scholarly endeavor—a national project to understand the deep roots of Indian civilization. But when Professor Ganesh Devy examined the committee's composition, he saw a critical flaw: it had no members from the Northeast, no women, no Christians, Muslims, Jains, or Buddhists, and no one from South India.

This was not just an oversight; it was a structural exclusion that threatened to produce a history as narrow as the committee itself. In response, Devy launched a counter-project: The Indians: Histories of a Civilization, a monumental volume edited by him and contributed to by over 90 scholars. More than just a book, it became a citizen's intervention into how history is written, who writes it, and for whom.

This post explores the philosophy behind Devy’s project—a "people's history" that insists "India is a union of states," and that its history must reflect that union in all its diversity, complexity, and resistance.

The Flawed Committee: History as a Monologue

The government’s 12,000-year review committee was framed around the Holocene—a period of climate change that allowed human civilization to flourish. Yet, the committee itself lacked the very diversity that defines India. As Devy notes:

“There was nobody in that committee from the Northeast… no Christian, no Muslim, no Buddhist, no Jain… not even one woman… nobody from the South.”

Why does this matter? Because history is never neutral. It is a narrative shaped by the positionality of its narrators. A committee that excludes vast regions, religions, and genders is not just unrepresentative—it risks producing a hegemonic history, one that centers certain experiences while marginalizing others. In Devy’s words, the outcome of such a committee would “not be doing justice to the complex multifaceted history of India.”

This was not merely an academic concern. In a country where history is often politicized—used to legitimize certain identities while erasing others—such a committee could produce a narrative that flattens India’s diversity into a monolithic, majoritarian story.

The People’s Response: A Collective, Multidisciplinary History

Devy’s response was to assemble not a committee, but a collective—over 100 scholars from diverse fields: genetics, archaeology, linguistics, philosophy, social sciences. Ninety of them contributed to The Indians, covering not just 12,000 years but “several thousand years prior to the Holocene.”

The methodology was radical in its inclusivity:

1. No Single Authority: Different scholars wrote on different themes—from animal domestication to medieval Kannada literature.
2. Multidisciplinary Approach: The book brought together genetics, archaeology, history, philosophy, and linguistics into a single narrative.
3. Pan-Indian Representation: Scholars from across India contributed, ensuring regional and cultural perspectives were included.

But Devy is characteristically humble about this achievement:

“What brought them together was the need of the hour… It is our time which brought them together.”

This reframes the project: it is not one man’s effort, but a collective awakening to the urgency of preserving a pluralistic past.

Breaking the Artificial Barriers: Pre-History, Proto-History, and History

One of Devy’s most significant interventions is his rejection of the traditional segmentation of Indian history:

1. Pre-history (before writing)
2. Proto-history (Indus Valley, undeciphered scripts)
3. History (post-Vedic, written records)

This segmentation, he argues, is not just academic—it’s political. It creates hierarchies of importance: “real” history begins with Sanskrit texts, while everything earlier is relegated to archaeology or anthropology. It also disconnects continuities, making it harder to see how tribal, oral, and non-literate traditions flow into the present.

Devy’s alternative is a single, continuous narrative:

“I thought it would be a good idea to bring the entire past together as a single matrix… a single spectrum within which complexities can be examined.”

This is more than a methodological shift—it’s a democraticization of time. It grants equal dignity to the Harappan city-planner, the Neolithic farmer, the Bhakti poet, and the Mughal administrator. It allows for a history where the “people” are not just postscript, but protagonists.

“India is a Union of States”: The Federal Philosophy of History

The title of Devy’s volume is deliberate: Histories (plural) of a Civilization. This reflects his core constitutional insight:

“The message is very clear… India that is Bharat is a union of states.”

For Devy, this isn’t just a political fact—it’s a historical truth. India’s civilization has always been a confluence of regional cultures, languages, and traditions. To write a singular “Indian history” is to impose a centralizing vision on what has always been a federal reality.

His approach does two things:

1. Centers the States: The book gives “utmost importance to states, not to the center.”
2. Highlights Difference and Union: It shows how different regions developed uniquely, yet also came together—not through conquest alone, but through trade, migration, and cultural synthesis.

This federal vision is a direct challenge to historical centralization—whether colonial, nationalist, or majoritarian. It insists that Tamil history, Bengali history, and Khasi history are not “local” stories, but integral threads in the national tapestry.

Why This Matters Today: History in the Age of Erasure

Devy’s project is not just academic—it’s urgently political. He warns of the “many-ended openness of histories,” which allows autocratic regimes to replace inconvenient narratives with self-serving ones.

“If some narratives decide to look at the essentials, the purities, against the non-essentials and the impurities… such an account can become a weapon.”

He cites Europe in the 1920s–30s, where the search for “pure blood” led to catastrophe. In India today, he sees similar tendencies: the “mindless erasure” of Mughal history, the downplaying of syncretic traditions, the favoring of “ancient glory” over complex truth.

Against this, Devy’s people’s history offers a tool of resistance. By documenting the full, messy, diverse past, it makes erasure harder. By highlighting synthesis—like the emergence of Marathi, Bangla, and Gujarati under Persian influence—it challenges purist narratives.

A Work in Progress: The Unfinished Task of History

Despite its scale, Devy calls The Indians a “work in progress.” Why? Because compressing millennia into chapters is necessarily reductive. A scholar who spent 50 years studying Jain philosophy had to summarize it in 1,500 words. Devy sees this not as an end, but as an invitation:

“Those 1,500 words… are enough of an invitation to a reader to know more.”

The real task, he implies, is not to write the definitive history, but to open up history—to make it a living, expanding, inclusive conversation. It is to ensure that future generations build on this foundation, producing “more flawless, better accounts of the entire past.”

Conclusion: History as an Act of Democracy

Ganesh Devy’s “people’s history” is more than a book—it’s a philosophy of history as democracy. It insists that:

1. History must be written by the many, not the few.
2. The past must be told as a continuum, not a hierarchy.
3. India’s story is inherently plural—a union of histories.

In an age where history is weaponized to divide, Devy’s project is a profound act of intellectual reconciliation. It reminds us that to know India truly, we must listen to all its voices—from the Himalayan shepherd to the Keralite fisherman, from the tribal storyteller to the urban poet.

“This book says that India is a union of states, and therefore history of India will have to be histories of India.”

In that one sentence, Devy captures the essence of his project: a vision of history that is as diverse, as federal, and as resilient as India itself. A vision where the past is not a weapon, but a wellspring of belonging for all who call this civilization home.

Further Reading / References from Transcripts:

1. Devy’s interview with The Federal on The Indians: Histories of a Civilization.
2. His critique of the government’s history committee.
3. His broader lectures on linguistic federalism and civilizational diversity.
4. The methodology of the People’s Linguistic Survey of India as parallel to his historical approach.