- The Eurocentric concept of the term discovery is often associated with intellectual curiosity, exploration, and science, and signifies the act of encountering something for the very first time.
- The Eurocentric conception of historical “discovery” by emphasising the networks of commerce and cultural connections between India and other civilisations before European voyages stands challenged.
- The Eurocentric paradigm has downplayed accomplishments beyond Europe and the monetary advantages for European exploration, especially the need for spices.
Discovery as a word usually means the act of finding and learning about something for the first time, uncovering knowledge, places, and scientific truths, which was previously unknown to a particular individual or group. However, the historical perspective of the word discovery often reflects a Euro-centric perspective. We’ve all been taught that Christopher Columbus discovered America and Vasco de Gama discovered India, this euro-centric perspective where non-European cultures and lands are only acknowledged when Europeans first encounter them, overlooks and diminishes the knowledge interactions and achievements of non-European cultures.
However, many of the non-European lands were already inhabited and well-known to their native peoples, and they often had existing connections with other regions. This controversial and complex definition of discovery has led to serious alterations in the perspective of the history of the nations beyond the Indian Ocean and also the third-world countries to which we refer.
The Eurocentric concept of the term discovery is often associated with intellectual curiosity, exploration, and science, and signifies the act of encountering something for the very first time. When an explorer finds a new landmark which was previously unknown to their culture and their civilization that is known as discovery from the perspective of Europeans. For example, when Captain James Cook encountered Australia, it was considered a discovery when Vasco de Gama landed in Calicut it was considered a discovery of India, even though the indigenous Indians and Australians had already been living on that particular land for centuries.
Minimising the focus to “India” the subcontinent was extremely influential and remarkably vast in trade networks and it had trade relations with the Roman Empire, south-east Asia and even East Africa. India was a prominent centre of commerce, culture and technological change, through the archaeological shreds of evidence – Roman coins were unearthed in southern India, where the mighty Chola empire once existed. From at least the first century BCE India engaged in extensive trade with the Roman Empire, spices, textiles, gemstones, and ivory. These goods were highly valued in Roman society, and pitchers of wine bought from Rome were seen during the archaeological excavation, especially in regions, like Tamil Nadu sites like Arikamedu revealing the fine pottery[1].
India was a prominent centre of commerce, culture and technological change, through the archaeological shreds of evidence - Roman coins were unearthed in southern India, where the mighty Chola empire once existed.
The Sea Route along the cape of Good Hope was already known to the Roman Empire as well as the other civilisations; and the fact that the route was discovered by Vasco de Gama and other European seafarers is an absolute ignorance of the achievements of the native people and the previously existing civilisations. This narrative makes it seem as though these lands were waiting to be discovered. When in fact, they were thriving interconnected societies.
King Vijayalaya established the mighty Chola Empire and during the height of the Empire that is ninth century onwards, the Indian trade networks expanded dramatically, the descendants of the founder and the mightiest king of all Raja Raja I and his son Rajendra I maintained & established a very powerful naval system that secured trade across Bay of Bengal in the east and also maintained relations with the western empires as well, therefore, it’s a straight out negation of the most talked of the fact that south-east Asian nations were discovered by the Europeans. The visible adoption of Hindu and Buddhist practices and the adaptation of Indian architectural styles of temples, such as those of Angkor wat in Cambodia and Prambanan temple in Indonesia, shows a clear Indian influence. Therefore, the Indian subcontinent not only thrived but also religiously influenced central Asia and Southeast Asia also had mutually beneficial economic trade, technological exchange, and artistic influence, leaving a lasting impact on the societies from Southeast Asia to the Middle East prior to being discovered by the Europeans.
The demand for spices and luxury goods in Europe grew by the late Middle Ages. The European markets had also developed a large appetite for Asian spices. These goods were costly and limited in supply as they reached Europe through long and fragmented overland roads across the Arabian lands. Now these routes were being controlled by Arab, Persian & Venetian traders, and they also imposed a very high number of tariffs and monopolised access by driving prices even higher. So as a result, this pushed the European merchants and traders to find an alternative route by bypassing these intermediaries by establishing a direct maritime route to Asia, particularly India, where many of these priced goods originated. This demand for Asian spices proves that there already existed a trade between the civilisations. The urge to acquire the goods at lower prices and to procure the raw materials for themselves firsthand, the Europeans travelled navally to India.
This demand led to the beginning of the age of exploration when in 1492, Christopher Columbus set out on a Westward voyage under the sponsorship of Spain to reach Asia. He intended to reach Asia by circumventing the African continent altogether, so the reason Christopher Columbus set out on a Westward voyage is that he believed that the world was round, and even if he set out on a westward journey, he would eventually reach his destination- Asia, but he did not know the fact that there existed a large landmark between Europe and Asia – the Americas, this fact proves that the Eastward route from the Cape of Good Hope was already known to them.
The Indian subcontinent and the other regions were all participants in the well-established trade networks. The European discovery did not bring entirely new connections, but rather introduced a new set of players, newly formed nation states in the pre-existing system of trade and commerce. Indian merchants were already in trade with the Romans. They were already trading with the Arabs and other Southeast Asian counterparts, while European powers asserted control over the trade routes in the markets.
While the pre-existing relationship of economic connections was largely based on trade and mutual benefit. The European discovery ushered in a period of colonial expansion and it intensified the competition for control over these newly discovered regions, it started off with the establishment of trading ports, followed by the fortification of factories and turning them into colonies and eventually controlling the political administration of the colony. The European dominance in Asia marked the shift in global trade dynamics.
The portrayal of history from the European angle is often called the “progressive arch” of civilisation and other civilisations are frequently presented as stagnant and backward in comparison.
Dada Bhai Naoroji in “Poverty and Un- British Rule in India”,[2] elaborated the economic consequences of the British rule and exposed economic exploitation by the British, which he believed was a significant obstacle to India’s prosperity, he used statistical data to illustrate the economic drain, showing the difference between India’s wealth generation and revenue sent to Britain. This exploitation prevented the country from investing in its own growth and development, this hindered industrialisation, infrastructure development, and basic general economic progress.
The phenomena of Eurocentrism centres on European culture, history and values and presents them as universal or superior, and it marginalises and disregards other non-European perspectives and ideas. Even by framing the world map, with the Mercator projection[3], it distorts the size of the countries of the global South. It gives more importance and prominence to Europe and North America, and it minimises the importance of Asia and Latin America, which is now called the global South.
This action is referred to as colonial cartography. Now during the age of exploration, the explorers often positioned Europe in the middle of the map – at the centre of the world; This led to the idea of a civilising mission where the non-European world was seen as an unexplored, undiscovered, backwards and primitive, which needed a superior and imperial power to guide them, to accustom them to the changing world.
This portrayal of history from the European angle is often called the “progressive arch” of civilisation and other civilisations are frequently presented as stagnant and backward in comparison. This narrative also overlooks the rich culture, heritage, art, religion, infrastructure, technology, naval power, trade, and commerce that previously occurred before the incoming of the age of exploration. Many great history books have been written with a lens which is not only biassed but is also disoriented and disconnected from the indigenous knowledge and voice. They do not represent the experiences of the non-European population.
The European perspective of writing history has marginalised complex, vibrant strings of the political systems that existed outside of Europe. Recently, activists, scholars and even historians have called for rewriting the history and for the inclusion of non-European perspectives and recognition of the previously existing empires, human connections and acknowledgement of complex histories of ancient civilisations such as India.
References:
- [1] “The Margaretologist: Final Report on Arikamedu, India”- The Journal of the Center for Bead Research, Volume 13, Number 2 Issue 30. 2001.
- [2] Naoroji, D. (1901b). Poverty and un-British rule in India. https://static.my-shop.ru/product/pdf/92/912486.pdf
- [3] Monmonier, M. S. (2004). Rhumb Lines and Map Wars: A Social History of the Mercator Projection. https://chicago.degruyter.com/view/title/560062
Sindhuri Sai is pursuing a degree in law at the Campus Law Centre, University of Delhi. Views and opinions expressed are the author’s own.
Aayush Pal 
Parag Gilada 
Satish Chogule