Persian Historiography

The importance or centrality of Persian histories (whether imperial, regional or universal) can be gauged from the deep reliance placed by British historians on them for their own understanding of India’s past. The examples are numerous: Dow, Erskine, Elliot and Dowson explored Persian sources for their writings. Stewart also based his History of Bengal mainly on Persian materials; Mill did not know Persian and so wrote his History of India from Persian sources translated into English. Marshman used published English translations of Persian texts in the compilation of his History of Bengal . Hunter also depended for his understanding of the insight into the history of Muslim rule in Bengal on Persian source materials translated for him into English. Elphinstone, Thomas, Wheeler, Keene, Blochmann and Berveridge were all good Persian scholars and used, in addition to Persian sources, coins, inscriptions and archaeological finding for their writings can be fitted with this group. The recent work of Kumkum Chatterjee alerts us to the twin activities of British scholars and historians: translating Persian histories, as well as writing new histories of India based on the already established Persian model. The former indicates a serious engagement of colonial scholars with older models of history writing (as the appreciation heaped on the A’in as a historical source in the preface to its published edition indicates); the latter proves the adage that imitation was indeed, in this context, a form of flattery, however unintended.

Abbās Quli Aqā Bākikhānov (1794-1847) and Mirzā FatḥʾAli Akhundzādeh (1812-78) both came from the same socio-economic class, performed the same professional function in Russian government service, and shared literary interests as shown by their membership of the same literary club in Tiflis. They also aimed at reforming and modernizing the Azeri and Iranian societies. However, it was also on this very subject that their differences became apparent. Not only did they disagree on what the nature of that change had to be, but they also diverged about the pace of change. Whereas Akhundzādeh wanted to travel in the fast lane to bring about modern and secular indigenous societies that were modeled after a modernizing Russia, Bākikhānov argued for traveling the slower lane, preserving what he considered was good and worthwhile of his traditional native cultures, which also included a modernized form of Islam and the teaching of Persian. The two men also differed in their approach to how to help bring about the desired changes. Akhundzādeh used his literary talent to mainly address the educated class by showing them in his plays and prose how backward their society was and, by implication, how necessary it was to secularize and Europeanize. Bākikhānov, being more of a Sufi-bent Muslim, wanted to reach Azeri society in a much more targeted way. Neither man was successful in their objective during their lifetime, although their works had a lasting influence on Azeri and Iranian reformers.