The New Cambridge History of India

• 1. Introduction

  ›

  The New Cambridge History of India is one of the most ambitious publishing projects Cambridge University Press has ever undertaken. It set out to replace a predecessor that itself stood as a monument of scholarly ambition: The Cambridge History of India, which appeared between 1922 and 1937. What drove scholars to start over? And what does a replacement that abandons its predecessor's very structure tell us about how history gets written?

  The answers lie in how knowledge about India changed over the course of the twentieth century. The original history treated India's past as a single connected story, told collaboratively across multiple authors. The new history breaks that mold entirely. Each volume is the work of a single author, and no single narrative thread ties the volumes together. That choice was a statement. It said: India's past is too large, too contested, and too multifaceted for any one voice to carry it.

  There is also a deliberate boundary: the new history begins at the fourteenth century and goes no further back. The earlier millennia of Indian civilization fall outside its scope. Four broad parts organize the whole, stretching from the age of the Mughals to the shape of contemporary South Asia.

• 2. Breaking With the Original

  ›

  Between 1922 and 1937, Cambridge University Press brought out The Cambridge History of India as a unified narrative. Teams of scholars pooled their work into chapters that flowed from one to the next, building a single arc. That model reflected how British academic history operated in the early twentieth century: grand synthesizing projects, produced collectively, told in one continuous voice.

  The New Cambridge History of India did not inherit that model. Each book within it stands alone, written by a single scholar who commands that particular field. There is no editorial hand smoothing one volume into the next. Readers who move from one title to another will encounter different voices, different interpretive frameworks, and different ways of weighing evidence. That is not an accident. It reflects a conviction that scholarly honesty demands showing the seams, not hiding them.

  The decision to start at the fourteenth century also broke with the original. Older scholarship often treated South Asian history as a long unbroken continuum from ancient times forward. The new project drew a line. Whatever comes before the fourteenth century belongs to a different kind of inquiry, addressed by other scholarly tools.

• 3. Four Parts, One Horizon

  ›

  Cambridge organized the new history into four parts, each covering a distinct phase of South Asian experience. Part I, titled The Mughals and their Contemporaries, opens the sequence at the period when the Mughal empire was reshaping the subcontinent. Part II, Indian States and the Transition to Colonialism, takes up the complex middle ground when indigenous polities confronted and adapted to colonial pressure.

  Part III carries the title The Indian Empire and the Beginnings of Modern Society, examining what imperial rule actually produced on the ground: new institutions, new social forms, new conflicts. Part IV, The Evolution of Contemporary South Asia, reaches into the present, asking how the accumulated weight of Mughal rule, colonial transformation, and independence has shaped the region that exists today.

  Those four titles are not chapters in a single argument. They are zones of scholarly focus, each populated by independently authored volumes. A reader interested only in the colonial period can enter at Part III without having read Parts I or II. That modularity was built in from the start, and it distinguishes this project from virtually every comparable history of a major world region.

• 4. Scholarship Without a Single Voice

  ›

  Publishing a major regional history through single-author volumes carries a particular kind of intellectual risk. When one scholar writes an entire book on, say, the Mughal court or the early colonial economy, that scholar's interpretation saturates every page. There is no counterpoint built into the text itself. Readers must supply their own critical distance, or turn to another volume in the series where a different scholar may reach different conclusions.

  This approach also means the project has no fixed endpoint. Unlike the original history, which was complete by 1937, the new history continues to grow as additional single-author volumes appear under each of the four parts. Cambridge University Press publishes them as a series of individual works, so the whole remains open-ended. That openness suits a body of scholarship that is itself still evolving.

  The commitment to single authorship also means that the depth of coverage across the four parts is uneven by design. Some periods and themes attract more scholarly attention than others, and the series reflects those real-world concentrations of expertise rather than imposing an artificial balance.