(A post from SCI/SCIM)

Thanks for the references, I have read some of these -- most partially.
I was not referring to lack of sources in a library but general paucity 
of indigenous sources of Indian history.  This is what I meant. Take for 
instance the following quote:

****

"The trite observation that Indian literature, prior to Muslim period
does not include formal histories, although true in a sense, does not
present the whole truth.  Most of the Sanskrit books were composed by
Brahmans, who certainly had not a taste for writing histories, their
interest being engaged in other pursuits." 

(page 14, The Oxford History of India by Vincent Smith).

****

I have purposely quoted Smith because although he does not agree with
the claim he sees some truth in it.  Stronger opinions than this have
been expressed.  Some scholars believe that there is a correlation 
between a rigid caste structure and a lack of a sense of history 
(Steven Pinker cites a study in his new book "How the Mind works.")


Here is another quote from a Pakistani source:

****

"India, according to the ancient historians, had hardly any ascertainable
history before the advent of the Moslem Conquerers.  Elphinston, writing in
1832, observed that 'In Indian history no date of public event can be 
fixed before the invasion of Alexander, and no connected relation of the 
national transaction can be attempted until after the Muhammedan conquests.'
Total absence of writing, perhaps, had something to do with the emergence
of a speciliazed class of scholars -- Brahmans -- and the resulting denial
to the non-Brahman of his right to have access to the sources whence 
religion and culture themselves spring into prominence."

(pages 19-21, The Soul of Sind by A. K. Brohi)

****

Not much is known about pre-Buddha period, two hundred years between 
Kanishka and Guptas, 600 years after Harshavardhan and the knowledge
of the period between twelfth to seventeenth centuries seems primarily 
based on Muslim sources.  Nearly all the religious and secular texts are 
dated based on secondary criteria such as linguistic analysis and in some
instances none at all.  Nirad Chaudhuri writes in his book "Hinduism" that
scholars have assigned dates to certain texts without any supporting
evidence (this is from memory -- if I am wrong a correction is 
appreciated).

-- Milind Saraph