Periodization in History

   The history of any country or region or of the world as a whole is generally divided into specific periods and sub-periods. This is done on the basis of some specific criteria. One criterion which is common in traditional [historical writings is to divide the history of a country in terms of the dynasties that ruled over it. In this sense, we have the history of India divided into the Mauryan period, the Gupta period, the Mughal, period, etc., the history of China divided into the Han period, the Manchu period, etc., and the history of England divided into the Tudor period, the Stuart period, etc. This kind of division is still common as the period of the rule of a dynasty provides a convenient chronological period for study. The division of history into periods is also based on another criterion. For example, we have divisions like the Renaissance and the Industrial Revolution, which denote broad chronological periods in the history of some countries. But the criteria of division in this case are developments in certain aspects of cultural and economic life, rather than dynastic or political. Such divisions (unlike the divisions based on dynasties) indicate broad periods and not specific dates and years as developments in culture and economy cannot be traced back to any particular date nor do they end on a specific date. To give an example from Indian history, the period of the rise of Indian nationalism cannot be ascribed to any one particular event taking place on a particular date. Sometimes, division into periods is done on the basis of centuries. We have, for example, the history of England, let us say in the fifteenth century, the sixteenth century, the seventeenth century, and so on.
   Another, more important, kind of division of history into periods, or simply periodization, is done on the basis of demarcation of stages in the development of society. In this kind of periodization, each period denotes not only a broad chronology but a distinct form of society, economy, political system and culture, and has a well-defined character of its own distinguishable from other periods. The broadest commonly accepted periodization of the history of most countries and of the world as a whole is the division into ancient, medieval and modern periods. In terms of chronology, these periods vary from country to country as society in different countries and regions moved from one stage to another at different times. For example, in the history of Western Europe, the ancient period came to a close by the early centuries of the Christian era and the medieval period began when a new form of social system characterized by feudalism began to take shape. Similarly, the medieval period in the history of Western Europe may be said to have ended by the fifteen the seventeenth centuries and the modern period began with the decline of feudalism and the emergence of a new kind of social system, called capitalism. Comparable developments denoting the passing of one type of social system and the emergence of a new one in other countries or regions, say Asia and Africa, took place at different times. Therefore, the specific chronology of the ancient period, the medieval period and the modern period differs from country to country and region to region.
   It should also be remembered that the ancient period or the medieval period in the history of all countries does not have the same characteristic features. There are variations even in many essential features of social and economic life, political system and culture. Thus medieval China or medieval India does not necessarily denote the same kind of society, economy, political system etc., as that in medieval Europe. However, while periodizing the history of the world as a whole, the variations in different parts of the world are ignored for the sake of convenience, and new forms of society and economy, even though they might have emerged only in one region of the world, are taken to mark the beginning of a new period. For example, the period between the fifteenth and seventeenth centuries, which marks the beginning of the modern period in Western Europe, is also taken to mark the beginning of the modern period in the history of the world as a whole. This is done because some of the new trends that first emerged in Western Europe during these centuries also became the major features of the history of many other countries and regions in other parts of the world or exercised a powerful influence on the history of other countries in the subsequent period.

Contemporary History

   As mentioned above, the period of world history beginning from fifteenth seventeenth centuries is generally regarded as the modern period. The term ‘modern’ applied to this period implies that it would cover the developments from its beginning right up to the present time in which we live. Until two or three decades ago, however, the historians generally were reluctant to write about the period in which they or even their contemporaries (some of whom would be much older than them) lived. Many histories of the world written and taught in the 1950s, 1960s and even in the 1970s would stop with the year 1945 (the year when the Second World War ended) or 1939 (the year when the Second World War began). Some would stop even earlier in 1918 or 1914 (the years, respectively, when the First World War ended and began). Some of the reasons for doing so were very sound. Many important sources which the historian requires to write the history of the period in which he is living would not be available to him. For example, many important official papers regarding the activities of the governments are open to the historians for study only after a lapse of 50 years (in the case of some countries, 30 years). Many people who are involved in the formulation of policies and in the activities of the government, such as Prime Ministers. Ministers and high officials maintain diaries of their activities and notes or write their memoirs. These diaries and memoirs (generally called ‘private papers’) are generally not published in the lifetime of their authors and even when they are published or made public, care is taken to see that such portions as may show them or the government in a bad light are not published or made available to the historian. The official records and the private papers also often deal with matters of a sensitive nature or with persons still living and making them public may cause embarrassment to the governments or to the individuals. Some records of discussions between the leaders of different countries, if made public, may embitter relations between them or between them and other countries. Sometimes, governments release some documents to prove that their policies and actions were in the best interests of their countries or even of the world, and withhold others that may lead to a different conclusion. Because of the non-availability of all relevant sources of information, the historian, if he is to be true to his profession, would rather not venture to write the history of recent years.
   There are other, stronger, reasons why some historians are unwilling to write about the period in which they are living. The writing of history is a valid and useful intellectual activity only if it is practiced without bias. A historian who writes about the present is, in a sense, himself a participant and is emotionally involved in the events and developments that he is writing about. Therefore it is said, his writing cannot be unbiased and objective.
   The first reason regarding the historian’s reluctance to write about the present or contemporary history (we shall define what we mean by ‘contemporary history’ later) carries less weight. There is such a wide variety of materials available about contemporary history and in such abundance that the absence of some official records and private papers may not really make much difference. In fact, reliable materials on the aspects of history which are of gum importance to the historian, such as social and economic life, political institutions, science and technology, various components of culture, are more readily available for contemporary history than for any other period of the past. And these materials are available for almost every pan of the world. For earlier periods, even the facts with regard to the population of most parts of the world are not available with any degree of certainty. The question of bias is more relevant, even though a reader of Indian newspapers of the recent years may say that the writings on ancient Indian history, at least the popular writings, including those by some professional historians, reflect more biassed views on the history of the eighteenth century or even ancient Indian history than on the history of a more recent past. The danger of bias, however, is real and it need not be seen only or even mainly as narrow mindedness or prejudice. The historian’s view may be colored by his philosophical outlook or his general approach to the problems of the world. While narrow-mindedness of any kind has no place in the historian’s profession, no historian can be free from some philosophical outlook or other as he views the contemporary problems and issues from a certain standpoint. There is no getting away from this and the historian has to guard against the possibility of his outlook distorting his understanding of the problem he is studying. His philosophical outlook or general viewpoint may even be an aid to his study of history. The reader should study a historical work critically and try to find if the historian’s philosophical outlook or viewpoint has hampered his study of a historical event or development.
   A more serious problem which arises while studying contemporary history is the one of historical perspective or, as one historian has put it, of “knowing what happened in the end”. A historian dealing with the events of an earlier period, say, the Civil War in England or the Battle of Plassey, knows how those events ended and is also able to see the long-term consequences of those events. One cannot write with the same certainty about, say, the end of the Cold War.
   Since there was the possibility that one’s views might colour one’s historical study and since not enough time had elapsed to provide sufficient historical perspective, some historians thought it was not safe to write even the history of the nineteenth century. An example from recent history will illustrate this problem. In 1928, a scholar wrote an article on capitalism for a new edition of the The Encyclopedia Brittanica. In this article, he wrote, “Capitalism is still accused of responsibility for avoidable unemployment, arising from periodic alternations of climaxes and depressions in trade activity, of ‘booms’ and ‘slumps’. It is certain, however, that though there must always be some tidal movement of rise and fall, the former violence of these rhythms is now much abated...” This article was published in the Encyclopedia in 1929, the year which saw the beginning of the worst economic depression in history affecting almost all parts of the world. The 1920s had been the years of economic growth and prosperity for many capitalist countries in the West. The scholar, who wrote the article, was, presumably procapitalist and his writing was falsified just at the time it was published. Similar examples can be quoted to show how some recent events have proved that the views of some socialist scholars regarding the growing strength of the world socialist system were false.
   From the above, it is clear that much of contemporary history is ‘provisional’ or ‘open-ended’. But not all contemporary history is so. For example, the statement that the system of imperialism built by the European powers since the nineteenth century or before collapsed about two decades after the Second World War is not going to be proved false in the same way as no new scientific researchers are going to prove false the statement that the earth is not flat. The statement about the collapse of European imperialism describes a very important historical development in the contemporary world. There are many other significant historical developments in the contemporary world about which our knowledge would be much more than ‘provisional’ but there would also be quite a few about which our knowledge would remain ‘provisional’. Our knowledge of contemporary history is crucial to our understanding of the world in which we live and its problems even if such knowledge is ‘provisional’.
   But what is ‘contemporary history’? There are many different answers to this question. Literally, it might mean ‘only the history of what is already happening at the moment of writing” or ‘a record of events through which the historian has lived’. But most historians consider it to be a specified period of history with its own specific characteristics in the same way as ancient history, medieval history or even modern history. Some historians consider recent modern history to be contemporary history. According to one historian writing in the early 1960s, “...our era has such a well-defined character that it is possible to speak of contemporary history in a specific sense... Hence it is the crucial years from 1945 to the present day which can be regarded as especially the sphere of contemporary history.” Another historian, describing the period from 1917 to 1945 as the first stage of contemporary history, has stated, “Contemporary history begins with the Great October Socialist Revolution of 1917 in Russia. This revolution provided the impetus for a radical change in the fate of mankind, its transition from the domination of the exploiter classes to the elimination of exploitation, to the establishment of social justice...” Many Western historians considered the years between 1914 and 1945 as the domain of contemporary history, which is perhaps a reflection of the view that European developments were central to the history of the world. In 1965, a French historian published a book entitled Major Controversies of Contemporary History. He studied 65 controversies converging the period 1914-45, by analysing 11,000 published works and by personal interviews. Most of the controversies dealt with certain events of European history, a few concerned the U.S. policy vis-a-vis Europe and two related to Japan’s relations with Russia and the United States.
   There is an increasing trend among historians the world over to treat the history of the twentieth century as the specific sphere of contemporary history. The history of the twentieth century is viewed as contemporary history not only because it is a convenient period in terms of chronology or as recent modern history but because it is regarded as having a ‘well-defined character’ which makes it a distinct period of history, distinct even from modern history. Contemporary history, or the history of the twentieth century, is also increasingly viewed as contemporary world history. This is because of the awakening of mankind “to a sense of world community in which all were inescapably involved”. For the Europeans, according to the editor of a voluminous work on the twentieth century, it was possible to take a short-sighted view of the history of the period preceding the twentieth century and to think that Europe played a leading role in world history. Such a view, according to him, “is no longer even plausible, and any history of the 20th century has to take a view of the whole world in a way that was not true of earlier periods”. Geoffrey Barraclough, in his book An Introduction to Contemporary History, has written, “One of the distinctive facts about contemporary history is that it is world history and that the forces shaping it cannot be understood unless we are prepared to adopt worldwide perspectives”. He considers the period designated by him as “contemporary” to be different in “quality and content” from what is known as modern history. According to him, contemporary history has characteristics “which mark it off from the preceding period in much the same way as what we call ‘medieval history' is marked off from ‘modern history”. While no fixed dates can be given, contemporary history, according to Barraclough, “begins when the problems which are Actual in the world today first take visible shape”. He puts this in the last decade of the nineteenth century. In this book, we have generally followed this view.

Contemporary History - Some Characteristic Features

   The main characteristic feature of contemporary history, as indicated before, is that the world has become “integrated in a way it had never been before”. There are still many things that divide the world. There are countries that have highly developed economies and there are also the countries with extreme economic backwardness. There are ideological and political divisions such as capitalist, socialist and others. Much of contemporary history has been a history of confrontation and conflict. In spite of these divisions and conflicts, “the common problems of mankind” “have become the common concern of all”.
   Contemporary history is characterized by tremendous changes in every aspect of social, economic and political life and in every area of human activity. Winston Churchill, Britain’s Prime Minister in the 1940s and 1950s, mentions in one of his books the advice that an elder statesman gave him when he was entering politics. “My dear Winston”, the elder statesman told him, “the experiences of a long life have convinced me that nothing ever happens”. Churchill, commenting on this advice, wrote. “Since that moment, nothing has ever ceased happening.” He also described this century as “this terrible Twentieth Century”. In many ways, the contemporary period, which is mainly the twentieth century, has been truly “terrible”. No other century has seen such mass destruction and such avoidable misery as this century. However, many other things have happened, besides the terrible ones, in this century. This period has seen the collapse of imperialism and colonialism on a world-wide scale, the ending of the hegemony which Europe exercised over the world since the beginning of the modern age, and the rise of what is commonly known as the Third World-the peoples of Asia, Africa and Latin America-as a major force in world affairs. The period also saw the emergence of the United, States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics as world powers, or ‘super powers’ as they are commonly called. Thus world politics has been completely transformed during the past one hundred years.
   There have been changes in the nature and functions of the State the world over and new forms of State have emerged. In spite of many differences between different forms of State, the powers of the State everywhere have increased and the State now plays many more functions than it did in the past. There is much more active participation by the people in the political affairs of their countries and in the making of history than ever before. It may be recalled that in the year 1890 universal adult franchise was unknown in almost every part of the world. Now it is a common feature of political life in almost every part of the world.
   There have been tremendous changes in economy and society the world over. The Industrial Revolution, which began in England during the last decades of the eighteenth century, had spread to a few countries of Europe and North America by the end of the nineteenth century. In the twentieth century, industrialism has become a world-wide phenomenon. The advances in science and technology have been so far-reaching and fundamental that we often speak of them as revolutionary. Their direct application in industry has further accelerated the rate of changes in the economic life. In the process, however, the countries that do not have the advantage of modern science and technology, have been left behind and the gap between the economically developed countries and the others has increased. All societies have undergone major transformations. There has been an unprecedented increase in what is called “human expectations-a much higher percentage of human races demanding much more and believing that it is possible to provide it”. Ideological challenges such as those represented by the rise of socialism in mid-nineteenth century became powerful forces in the twentieth century influencing hundreds of millions of people in all parts of the world.
   There has been what may be called a growing secularization of political and social life, of art and literature, and of ideas, although some - pans of the world continue to be plagued with sectarian conflicts and violence. There has generally been a loosening of the hold of religion and what has been called “the growing impatient demand for greater satisfaction in man’s present life”. The art and literature of the contemporary world are distinguishable from the art and literature of any previous period. Many artists and writers rebelled against all traditions of art and literature; they experimented with new forms and techniques and gave expression to new experiences. In the countries where there was conscious revival of traditions as a part of national awakening and revival, the art and literature that grew were distinctly new and not merely a continuation of the traditional forms much less their imitation. The art and literature in almost every part of the world have been influenced by the developments in other parts of the world much more than in any other period of human history.
   The most significant characteristic of the contemporary history, which is increasingly becoming the dominant characteristic, is the awakening “to a sense of world community in which all were inescapably involved" as has already been mentioned. There has been a growing common concern over the common problems of mankind. The chief of these problems has been the common danger that the development of thermonuclear and other weapons of destruction posed to the very survival of human life. There are other problems, such as those of poverty and backwardness, of over-population and, More recently but one that is increasingly recognized, of environment. Human beings the world over have now a shared destiny as never before.

ReligionContemporary History and Modern History

   If, as discussed above, contemporary history is distinct from modern history (and not merely the most recent part of it), it is useful to have an overview of modern history. It should be remembered that no historical period is totally new; every historical period carries within itself much of the preceding period. There are always many elements of continuity. It is also necessary to know the preceding period in order to adequately grasp the new in the following period.
   The modern period of history may be said to have begun in the fifteenth-seventeenth centuries. If we take an overall view of the world. (This statement, of course, is not true for all regions and countries of the world.) These centuries marked the transition from the medieval period in some countries of Western Europe. The major historical developments in these centuries of transition were the Renaissance, the Reformation, the beginning of modern science, the discovery of new lands and new routes (particularly new sea-routes) leading to the colonization of the Americas and parts of Asia and Africa, and emergence of nation-states. All these developments were related to a fundamental change in the way the social and economic life of the people was organized. This change was the disintegration of the feudal system and its replacement by a new system, called capitalism. A large pan of the world was brought together as a result of these developments, often by brute force and, in the case of many pans of Africa, by enslavement. Another development which began to take place in the second half of the eighteenth century and which brought about even more fundamental changes was the Industrial Revolution. It began in England with the use of machines for producing goods. By the last quarter of the nineteenth century, the Industrial Revolution had spread to many countries of Europe, though in varying degrees, and to North America, particularly the USA. The countries to which the Industrial Revolution had spread had their social and economic life completely transformed. The centre of economic activity shifted from rural to new industrial production and related activities than in agriculture and an ever-growing share of a country’s wealth came from industry rather than from agriculture. Two new social classes emerged in society, the capitalists or the bourgeoisie, who were the owners of industries and controlled trade and commerce, and the industrial working class or the proletariat, who worked for a wage. This was a period of terrible misery for the working classes of the industrialized countries of Europe. The workers began to organize themselves into trade unions even though in many countries these were illegal. They also began to organize themselves as a distinct political force under the influence of the ideas of socialism. Thus arose the socialist movement which strove not only to promote the economic demands of the workers but also to mobilize them to overthrow the system of capitalism itself. Karl Marx and Frederick Engels played a leading role in giving a scientific shape to the ideas of socialism and in organizing the socialist movement in many countries of Europe. The ideas of socialism also reached the United States. In 1864, the International Working Men’s Association, popularly known as the First International, was formed. By the time it was formally abolished in 1876, socialist parties had been organized in many countries of Europe.
   Some of these had a large following. In 1871 the first revolution inspired by the ideas of socialism had taken place in Paris. This is known in history as the Paris Commune which, though it lasted for barely three months, was an event of great historical importance. In 1889, the Second International was formed and socialist parties of various countries were affiliated to it. In the meantime, laws were passed in many countries to safeguard workers against some of the worst effects of the Industrial Revolution and capitalist exploitation.
   Simultaneously with these developments, there were significant changes in the political sphere. We have mentioned the formation of nation-states as one of the major developments that marked the period of transition from the medieval period to the modern period. The formation of nation-states in Europe continued during the nineteenth century and, in the case of some countries, during the first two decades of the twentieth century. Nationalism arose as a major factor in the history of Europe.
   Nations that were divided into a number of States, such as Germany, and others that were divided into a number of States some of which were under the rule of another country such as Italy, strove to unite themselves into independent States. There was another major development regarding the political system in many countries of Europe. The political system in almost all countries of Europe was monarchical and autocratic. Only England, after a civil war in the seventeenth century, had succeeded in establishing the supremacy of Parliament. During the eighteenth and nineteenth century’s ideas of democracy and popular sovereignty gained ground. In 1789 took place the French Revolution which proclaimed the ideals of liberty, equality and fraternity, and Rights of Man and Citizen. Earlier, the English colonists had issued the Declaration of Independence which declared that “all men are created equal and had certain “inalienable rights” and that the people had a right to overthrow an oppressive government. The colonists had succeeded in their war of independence and had set up a new independent republic, the United States of America.
   Along with nationalism, democracy was a major force in the history of the nineteenth century Europe. A number of revelations and movements took place in most countries of Europe to establish democratic political system. Although almost all the countries of Europe continued to have a monarchical form of government, in many cases the monarchies were constitutional, that is, they were governed by constitution and real power was exercised by parliament. In most countries, however the franchise was not universal, and many men and all women were excluded from the right to vote.
   All these developments were confined to Europe and North America, but even in Europe there were some countries that remained unaffected. The rest of the world had neither an Industrial Revolution, except Japan during the last decades of the nineteenth century, nor the kind of social and political changes that have been mentioned above. The colonization of the Americas and parts of Asia and Africa which took place with the discovery of new lands and sea-routes has been mentioned earlier. A new wave of imperialism arose during the last three decades of the nineteenth century and before the end of the century almost every parts of the world had come under direct or indirect subjugation of a few European powers (and of the United States). In the case of some countries, the actual occupation took much longer in the face of resistance put up by the people of the colonies. The imperialist conquest of some other countries, such as India, had been completed even earlier. The countries of the world which today constitute the Third World were subjected to economic exploitation by the imperialist countries even thought they were not under direct imperialist rule. The people of the colonies resisted the imperialist rule from the very beginning. However, even before the nineteenth century ended, powerful forces had begun to emerge in some countries under colonial domination, which sought to end the colonial rule, not for restoring the pre-colonial systems in their countries but for transforming them into independent modem nations, industrializing them and building their societies on the principle of quality. This world was very different from the world which came into being in the twentieth century, particularly during the times in which we live. It should, however, be remembered that some of the forces that were to build the world of the twentieth century, had already begun to emerge in the nineteenth century.