58 SOCIAL SCIENTIST assertion took the easy path of obliterating the distinction between myth and history. Sudhir Chandra aptly describes the process: The search for a counter-history was facilitated by the traditional absence of a distinction between mythology and history. So, both literary and quasi-historical classics of the past—the Ramayana, the Mahabharata and the Puranas, for example—came to be seen as more than repositories of the community's myths, wisdom and traditions; they were seen as containing a history and a meaning relevant in providing the raw materials for reconstructing India's past. They were histories.' He further elaborates: 'In nineteenth century India, though it was beginning to be made, the distinction between myth and history was minimal. It was natural even for the English-educated to consider, for example. Ram and Yudhishthir at par with Akbar and Ahilyabai in terms of their historicity.' The 'vernacular mind' that evolves in the nineteenth century, thus, is the illegitimate child of myth and history. And to the extent the contemporary intelligentsia inherits this legacy uncritically, the birthmarks still show. Lest the conclusion sound a bit too hasty, Chandra's study provides ample material to bolster it. The dichotomy between belief and action that characterised the behaviour of educated people during the later nineteenth century (and still does), is well documented. Chandra sees this as the very structure of belief comprising opposing elements. On all matters of social reform like widow remarriage, the joint family system, etc., the protagonists of reform, in their personal lives flinch in facing the logical conclusion of their own pronouncements. This, to Chandra, means that 'within the nineteenth century Indian colonial context, the satisfaction of feeling the superiority of "tribal" socio-cultural organisation was powerful enough to subordinate many a personal frustration and tragedy.' This ambivalence, tension and contradiction in the nineteenth century intelligentsia is seen by Chandra as necessitated by the need to maintain social equilibrium in the frontal confrontation with the alien culture of British colonialism. The attitude of the 'vernacular mind' to the communal question more clearly demonstrates this phenomenon. Whether it is Pratapnarain, Harishchandra, Radhacharan or a host of others whose writings are quoted in great detail in the book, all of them explicitly, or implicitly, equate the Hindus/Aryas with India. Though this identification may have been done quite unselfconsciously, 'deep down it would appear, India was believed by Hindus to belong naturally to them'. Despite his critical empathy, Chandra is constrained to note: 'Hindu feelings against Muslims ranged (then) from an unstated and subtle assumption to straightforward abuse. This hostile feeling could often lurk in the dark crevices of consciousness.'