Unravelling the past: How chronology unlocks causation in Indian history

1. Conceptual link between chronology and causation

Chronology = arrangement of events in sequence of time.

Causation = explaining why an event happened, i.e., cause-effect relationship.

Without chronology, causation becomes speculative. Only when events are ordered in time can we test whether one preceded and possibly caused the other.

Example: In Indian history, we can only explain why Mughal decline happened (causation) if we set events chronologically—Aurangzeb’s long wars, rise of regional powers, economic strain, foreign invasions.

2. Indian historiography and chronology

Ancient Indian tradition: Often lacked strict chronology (Puranic genealogies mixed with myth). This weakened causal analysis. E.g., it is hard to establish the exact sequence of Mahajanapada rise, making causal arguments difficult.

Colonial historians (James Mill, Elphinstone, etc.) introduced a rigid chronology to frame “Hindu-Muslim-British periods”. This helped causation analysis but imposed Eurocentric categories.

Nationalist historians (RC Majumdar, KP Jayaswal) stressed Indian achievements and used chronology to highlight continuity of civilisation → causation seen as resilience and cultural unity.

Marxist historians (DD Kosambi, R.S. Sharma, Irfan Habib) heavily relied on chronology of economic and social change to establish causation (e.g., rise of feudalism after Gupta age leading to fragmentation of polity).

Subaltern studies: Chronology used to uncover people’s movements and link them causally to state oppression.

3. Chronology as a tool of causation in Indian history

Ancient India:

Rise of Buddhism → causally explained by chronological study of 6th century BCE socio-economic changes (urbanisation, trade, varna rigidity).

Mauryan Empire → causation explained via Nanda economic base + Macedonian invasion.

Medieval India:

Delhi Sultanate decline → causation visible in chronological unfolding: Mongol pressure (13th c.) → internal revolts (14th c.) → Timur’s invasion (1398).

Bhakti and Sufi movements → chronology shows rise during 12th–15th centuries, causally linked to social tensions under new Islamic polities.

Modern India:

1857 Revolt → causation clear only with chronological build-up: annexations (Awadh 1856), military grievances, socio-religious reforms, and immediate trigger of greased cartridges.

Freedom struggle → chronology allows us to see causal escalation: Moderates → Extremists → Gandhi’s mass movements → Partition.

4. Civil Services (history optional) usefulness

Chronology provides factual scaffolding; causation provides analytical depth.

Questions often demand both:

“Was 1857 the first war of independence?” → You must use chronology to show sequence of causes and judge the claim.

“Was feudalism responsible for political fragmentation after the Guptas?” → Requires chronological-causal reasoning.

“Discuss how Marxist historiography uses chronology to establish causation.”