ABSTRACT

This article examines the paucity of pre-1947 Indian princely state records, especially those regarding their federalist advocacies from the 1920s through 1940s, in the various provincial archives in postcolonial India. Why is it that archives in Delhi and London have the majority of records pertaining to the federalist advocacies of the princely states, rather than the archives in provincial states that were constituted by the merger of princely states themselves? The absence of princely state federalist records reveals a surprising indifference to the preservation of historical records in various state archives. Indian archival laws pertain to public records alone, leaving out responsibility for the acquisition and preservation of historical records. Consequently, in India, the phrase “archival records” has come to mean public records more than 30 years old; there is no clarity as to what “historical records” are, nor guidance on how they should be preserved. Indian archival laws maintain a colonial understanding of the archive, wherein the function of the archive is to tame history in service of the state rather than preserve history outright. Taming the nation’s history in state archives silences the multiplicity of voices about Indian federation and presents particular difficulties when writing regional histories.

摘要

本文考察了 1947 年前印度王侯国家记录的匮乏，尤其是那些关于 1920 年代至 1940 年代联邦主义主张的记录，这些记录在后殖民印度的各个省级档案中。为什么德里和伦敦的档案馆拥有与诸侯国的联邦主义主张有关的大部分记录，而不是由诸侯国本身合并构成的省级档案馆？君主州联邦党人记录的缺失揭示了对保存在各个州档案中的历史记录的令人惊讶的漠不关心。印度档案法仅适用于公共记录，不承担获取和保存历史记录的责任。因此，在印度，“档案记录”一词已指超过 30 年的公共记录；没有明确说明什么是“历史记录”，也没有关于如何保存它们的指导。印度档案法保持对档案的殖民理解，其中档案的功能是驯服历史，为国家服务，而不是彻底保存历史。在国家档案中驯服国家历史会压制关于印度联邦的多种声音，并在撰写地区历史时带来特殊困难。