82 SOCIAL SCIENTIST What was the nature and character of ancient Indian thought? What were its presuppositions? c)Is it justified to use the phrase •'the ancient Indian thought?" What evidence do we have to show that it was spiritualistic and otherworldly? Fortunately, Pratap Chandra has tried to answer these pertinent questions in the light of the canons of history writing. His concern mainly is to uncover the historical model on which most historians of Indian thought, consciously or unconsciously, have based their studies. He has attempted a critical examination of the popular stereotype that ancient Indian thought was 'spiritualistic and otherworldly', and has tried to show that the model implicit in this has nothing to do with known facts and is in fact"an uncritical borrowing from the West". He has also tried to show that the kind of the plurality which characterized ancient India did not obtain in the West and, consequently, studying Indian situation on the analogy of the West is bound to create a false picture. In fact, no historically sound understanding of ancient Indian thought and culture can be expected in the absence of a "historical model" springing from the truly Indian situation. In the context of India's modernization, the only section of the Indian society which can be considered really important is the Hindu majority. 'Tor legal, sociological and historical reasons, this community also includes the Jains and the Buddhists...while there are important differences of beliefs and world view as well as of social organisation, the ultimate foundations are the same". A pertinent question can be raised here: In a society which has always been based on a class structure, what can be the import of terms like "the average Hindu" or, for that matter, "the Hindu" or "the ancient Indian"? Docs it imply a system of beliefs and characteristics shared universally by an entire community? In addition to the class structure, India's lack of homogeneity should make us wary of such generalizations. Pluralistic societies cannot have a numerically shared belief-system. It is a pity that many historians of Indian thought do not feel the need either to understand the ancient Indian and relate him to the Indian thought or to highlight the basic assumptions of the thought system and see how these affect the growth. A term which is very widely yet uncritically used in the context of history of Indian thought is "borrowing". What is the precise import of this term, and how far are we justified in using it in this way? In fact, "borrowing is a non-dialectical static concept. It is really a method of evading explaining anything one finds difficult to explain. Borrowing is not something one can do at the very start. When