ROLE OF THE PAST 31 no attempt to develop general patterns and processual explanations. In order to make the study of Indian civilization—of both the past and the present—socially relevant, an intellectual rejuvenation is imperative as a continuous interacting process between theory and practice. Mere accumulation of empirical evidence in scientific reports will neither enhance the status of a discipline into an intellectual one, nor be socially relevant from the viewpoint of the social and cultural transformation being planned in India.2 Thus, a study of the past has to be present-and-future-oriented, and not one that reinforces all and sundry tradition. This objective does not conflict with the avowed academic goals of reconstructing generalized patterns of fossil human behaviour. In the long run, the goals of understanding past socio-cultural and economic processes and patterns is of greater utility—even a practical one at that—than the so-called descriptive and historiographical pursuit of piecing the past together. For example, much of the research work appears to follow a methodology that seems to be a continuation of the narrative method of myths, legends and epics, and in doing so we seem once again to be emphasizing the ideal norms of religion and philosophy. Similarly, Indian history gives one the impression that human beings in all ages and places did little more than struggle for power, fight wars and feuds; and that after AD sixth century India rapidly declined from the Golden Age; or that the Indian character structure has been inherently conservative, otherworldly, despondent, and so on. There are several myths, legends and prejudices which are present in our so-called objective study of history and archaeology. Stereotype Versions It is not unusual to come across some stereotype interpretations of India's past like "the spirituality of India and its golden past^. This statement is contradictory since the past was golden also because of the accumulation of wealth, business proficiency and a materialistic nature, rather than merely because of the 'spirit9. Sometimes we are told that "India was a melting pot where everything was absorbed into that indefinable amorphous 'Indian-ness'.5' This notion is based on the equilibrium model which suggests a static society, despite many socio-cultural, economic and political upheavals that are known to have gone on throughout our past. But even if this is a true statement, it has been explained away in terms of vague spirituality. On the contrary, the melting pot idea equally suggests the sheer co-existence of several insulated and isolated sub-units, while the enduring elements were ihe result of the development of certain common socio-cultural and economic patterns or core elements, rather than mere spread of tolerance, nonviolence and the peaceful nature of the Indian. In fact, the melting pot theory does not suggest an equilibrium model to us; on the contrary it implies continuous change, innovation and adaptation, since if Indian .society was so tradition-bound and rigid it would have gone out of